Opinions Archive

In this pretrial appeal, appellant State of Minnesota argues that the district court erred by applying the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence discovered by a private party following an unlawful citizen's arrest. Because the exclusionary rule does not apply absent unlawful government conduct, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant Peter Lonergan seeks review of a decision by the commitment appeal panel (CAP) denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment and granting the motion to dismiss submitted by respondent Minnesota Department of Direct Care and Treatment Executive Board (executive board). First, Lonergan argues that CAP erred in determining that he failed to present a prima facie case for his discharge. Lonergan also contends that CAP committed three errors during the petition proceedings: (1) the duration of CAP proceedings, including the delay before the CAP hearing, violated a statute and his right to due process; (2) the executive board's participation as a party violated Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 2(c) (2024); and (3) CAP abused its discretion by excluding three of Lonergan's exhibits and restricting his time to conduct direct examination of some witnesses. Alternatively, Lonergan argues that the statutory discharge criteria violated constitutional guarantees of substantive due process. We affirm.

In this appeal from an eviction judgment, appellant Levell Thomas argues that the district court erred by (1) violating his due-process rights and (2) not considering or excluding his defenses and affidavits. We affirm.

In this appeal challenging a district court order compelling postjudgment discovery, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting the motion to compel because respondents failed to serve him in accordance with court rules. We conclude that any defect in service was harmless and therefore affirm.

Appellant Andrew John Whitney challenges the district court's grant of the harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not make clearly erroneous findings of fact or misapply the harassment statute, we affirm.

In this post-dissolution custody dispute, the father of two teenage children filed a motion requesting multiple forms of emergency relief. Within three hours, the mother of the children objected to the emergency nature of the motion and requested that the matter be set for a hearing so that she could fully respond. The next morning, the district court granted the father's motion in full. On appeal, the mother challenges the district court's order on three grounds. We conclude that the district court erred because the circumstances that gave rise to the motion did not present a true emergency and, -thus, did not satisfy the requirements of the rule governing emergency motions in family court. Therefore, we reverse.

The district court granted Jeremy Tiede's motion to modify his child-support obligation to Samantha Barber based on Tiede's accountant's calculations of his self- employment income. Because the record does not establish, and the findings are insufficient to support the inference, that the accountant's calculations follow the statutory formula for calculating a parent's self-employment income in a child-support-modification proceeding, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In this appeal from the district court's order denying postconviction relief, appellant Jeffrey Velt Murray argues that the district court erred by summarily denying his claims of (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel and (2) prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.

Relator seeks review of the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she committed employment misconduct by failing to report for work without notice and that she is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator argues that the ULJ's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence and that she did not commit employment misconduct. We affirm.

In this appeal following a court trial on claims stemming from a construction dispute, appellant challenges the district court's entry of judgment in favor of respondent, arguing that (1) the district court clearly erred in finding that an enforceable contract existed between the parties, (2) the contract was not in writing as required by Minnesota law, (3) procedural irregularities prevented her from presenting an effective case, and (4) the district court's order erroneously included a non-party. Because the record supports the district court's findings and it did not err in its conclusions of law, we affirm.