Opinions Archive

1. Respondent/cross-appellant, who is challenging the jury instructions on appeal, did not invite error in the district court’s jury instructions. 2. To avoid confusing and misleading the jury in an innkeeper negligence case, a jury should not be instructed on superseding intervening cause when the conduct that an innkeeper claims is a superseding intervening cause is the same conduct that must be foreseeable to the innkeeper to establish the innkeeper's negligence. 3. Because the jury instructions were likely to confuse and mislead the jury and the resulting error was prejudicial under the circumstances of this case, a new trial is required. Affirmed.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s finding that he was guilty of violating a domestic abuse no contact order (DANCO) after the state alleged that he had telephoned the victim from jail, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict. We affirm.

Relator appeals by certiorari a decision of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) permanently disqualifying her from providing direct-contact services following its background study. We discern no basis to reverse DHS’s decision and therefore affirm.

This appeal stems from a decision of the commitment appeal panel (CAP), denying and dismissing appellant’s petition for transfer, provisional discharge, or discharge. Appellant argues that the CAP should have granted his petition because he contends he no longer suffers from the condition underlying his commitment and he is not receiving appropriate treatment in his current setting. We conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief from the CAP’s decision because he did not present competent evidence in support of his assertion regarding his clinical status. Additionally, the CAP is not the proper forum to consider his right-to-treatment argument. We therefore affirm.

In these consolidated appeals, appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss claims asserted by respondent State of Minnesota, which alleged that appellants engaged in a deceptive campaign to mislead Minnesota consumers and the public regarding climate change and fossil fuels. We affirm.

In this appeal after remand, appellant argues again that the threats-of-violence statute is unconstitutional as applied to social-media posts he made on the grounds that his posts are protected speech under the First Amendment. Appellant argues, in the alternative, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. Because the state failed to prove reasonable apprehension, an element of the threats-of-violence offense, we need not decide the constitutional issue and conclude that appellant’s conviction must be reversed.

Relator Kathleen Smith appeals the decision of the board of directors (the board) of respondent Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) denying Smith’s application for total and permanent disability benefits. Smith argues that the board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and the board breached its fiduciary duty. We affirm.

Petitioners Sierra Club, Vote Solar, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association (together, Sierra Club) appeal from a decision by an administrative-law judge (ALJ) that dismissed their petition for a declaration that respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the PUC) is enforcing a 2010 order as though it were a duly adopted rule. Because the PUC lacked authority to issue the 2010 order, which the parties agree is a rule, we declare that rule invalid.

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward dispositional departure, arguing that the district court committed reversible error by failing to consider factors for and against a probationary sentence. We affirm.

Appellant and respondent are co-beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust created by their father. On appeal in this trust dispute, appellant challenges the district court’s orders interpreting the trust, arguing that (1) the district court erred in finding that appellant violated her fiduciary duties as trustee under Minnesota Statutes section 501C.0802 (2024) when she conveyed trust property to herself, (2) the district court erred by ordering appellant to pay rent on a home that was a distributed asset, and (3) respondent lacks standing to challenge the approved accountings to their father during his lifetime. On cross-appeal, respondent argues that the district court erred in finding that appellant adequately accounted for the majority of the trust transactions from 2017 to 2020. Both parties argue that the district court erred in awarding the other party their respective attorney fees. We affirm.