Opinions Archive

The bar in Minn. Stat. § 60A.41(a) (2016) against an insurer proceeding in a subrogation action against “its insured,” where the loss was caused by the nonintentional acts of the insured, includes a proceeding against any person covered under the insurance policy.

Appellant-landowners challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent township board’s establishment of a cartway under Minn. Stat. § 164.08 (2016), pursuant to a petition for cartway filed by respondent adjacent property owners. Because the district court did not err by granting judgment in favor of the township board’s cartway decision, we affirm.

Appellant Q.S.M. (mother) had her parental rights to her child (J.S.M.) terminated following a trial. During the trial, the district court precluded J.S.M. from testifying in any manner, even informally. Mother appeals, arguing that it was error to exclude the child’s testimony. We reverse and remand.

Raymond DeGroat Sr. faced two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for having sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old daughter. He and the state entered into a plea agreement reducing the charges to second-degree criminal sexual conduct on the understanding that a 111-month executed prison term fell within the presumptive-sentence range. The district court accepted DeGroat’s guilty pleas and sentenced him to 111 months in prison. The commissioner of corrections noticed that the presumptive sentences on the reduced charges were actually only 36 and 48 months stayed, not 111 months executed. DeGroat moved to correct his sentence. The state conceded that the 111-month sentence was in error. The district court denied DeGroat’s motion anyway; it sua sponte vacated DeGroat’s convictions and guilty pleas and sua sponte reinstated the state’s original charges. Because the district court abused its discretion by vacating the guilty pleas and convictions on its own initiative, expressly disregarding binding supreme court precedent and the constitutional protection against double jeopardy to do so, we reverse.

In this trust dispute, pro se appellant challenges the district court’s order removing him as a beneficiary of the trust. We affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that he should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because it was unintelligent and involuntary. We affirm.

In an appeal from the termination of their parental rights, appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion in finding that statutory grounds were met and that termination was in the best interests of the children. We affirm.

Appellant Hennepin County Attorney’s Office appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for presumptive adult certification of respondent juvenile. We affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree sale of a controlled substance, arguing that the district court denied him his constitutional right to self-representation. We reverse and remand.

Appellant challenges his conviction for first-degree driving while impaired, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and denied him his constitutional right to present a complete defense by excluding an abridged version of the squad-car video recording as cumulative evidence. Appellant also raises three additional pro se arguments. We affirm.