Opinions Archive

An attempt, charged under Minn. Stat. § 609.17, to commit first-degree assault- harm, Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 1, is a valid crime under Minnesota law. Reversed and remanded.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In the Marriage of: Tabatha Ann Morfitt, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Marc Alan Morfitt, Appellant. SPECIAL TERM ORDER ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Braulio Garcia, Appellant, vs. Daikin Applied Americas Inc., Respondent. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-1785 Considered and ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re Issac David Henning, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Issac David Henning, Petitioner. SPECIAL ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In Re the Marriage of: Erica Leigh Riehm, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Harold Andrew Riehm, Appellant. SPECIAL TERM ORDER ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Continua Interiors of Minnesota, LLC, Respondent, vs. Brandon Hess, et al., Appellants (A25-1472), Continua Interiors ...

Appellant challenges the postconviction court's treatment of his sentence-correction request as a petition for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2024), and the postconviction court's subsequent denial because of procedural bars. Appellant argues that he properly filed a motion for a corrected sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, which is not subject to the same procedural bars. We conclude that the postconviction court erred by construing appellant’s request as a petition for postconviction relief. But because the issues raised by appellant do not provide a basis for relief, we affirm.

A court deciding a post-permanency juvenile-protection matter does not have jurisdiction to address child support. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Relators challenge a decision by the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Review Board (the Board) that dismissed their appeal. Relators assert that the Board erred by determining that it does not have authority to hear appeals from administrative-law judge (ALJ) decisions related to alleged retaliation under Minnesota Statutes section 182.669 (2024). The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (the Department) (respondent) agrees that the Board erred. Because the Board is statutorily required to hear the appeal, we reverse and remand.

This case arises from a dispute between appellant Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development LLC (Cliffs) and respondents Mesabi Land LLC and Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (collectively, Mesabi) over a 50-year mineral lease agreement (the lease). Following Mesabi's written notice to terminate the lease, the district court compelled arbitration at Cliffs' request. The arbitrators dismissed the arbitration proceeding on the ground that Cliffs made an untimely demand for arbitration and, in reaching that decision, concluded Mesabi properly terminated the lease. The parties filed competing motions in district court regarding the arbitration award. The district court granted Mesabi's motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Cliffs' motion to vacate the arbitration award. On appeal, Cliffs raises numerous legal arguments to contest the district court's decision. We conclude the district court appropriately granted the motion to confirm the arbitration award, and we therefore affirm.