Opinions Archive

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because appellant’s claims are time-barred and the facts alleged in the petition fail to establish an exception to the statutory time bar. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

1. When roof shingles are damaged in a storm and, under applicable state code provisions for shingle installation, the shingles cannot be replaced without first installing a new layer of sheathing, Minnesota Statutes section 65A.10, subdivision 1 (2024)—which mandates that replacement cost insurance include the cost of replacing, rebuilding, or repairing damaged property in compliance with the minimum code requirements imposed by state or local authorities—requires a replacement cost insurer to cover the cost of installing the sheathing. 2. Minnesota Statutes section 65A.10, subdivision 1, does not obligate an insurer to pay for overhead and profit costs unless the insured establishes that those costs constitute part of the “cost of replacing, rebuilding, or repairing any loss or damaged property in accordance with the minimum code as required by state or local authorities.” Affirmed. ________________________

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excused a seated juror for falling asleep during trial. 2. The State’s circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offense of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. 3. In addition to appellant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, the warrant of commitment erroneously includes convictions for first-degree domestic abuse murder and second-degree intentional murder committed against the same victim. 4. Appellant’s claims in his pro se supplemental brief do not merit relief. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Appellant forfeited his challenges to the district court’s restitution award by failing to raise those challenges in the district court. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

1. Those portions of title 7, chapter 139, of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances that prohibit an owner from refusing to rent residential property to an individual because of any requirement of a public assistance program do not violate the Minnesota Constitution’s Takings Clause, Minn. Const. art. I, § 13. 2. Those portions of title 7, chapter 139, of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances that prohibit an owner from refusing to rent residential property to an individual because of any requirement of a public assistance program are not preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Affirmed.

1. We review an appeal from a district court’s denial of a preliminary application for relief under the Act of May 19, 2023, ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, 2023 Minn. Laws 810, 864–68, under an abuse of discretion standard. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Griffin’s preliminary application because the application, materials submitted with the application, and relevant records in the possession of the judicial branch failed to establish a reasonable probability that Griffin did not cause the death of a human being. Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS July 29, 2025 In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal by Midwest Quality Home Care, Inc. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-0696 Considered ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS July 29, 2025 County of Hennepin, Petitioner, vs. Sydney Ann Benning, Respondent, Kahlid Rashawn Holliday, Appellant. ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS July 29, 2025 Weidner Apartment Homes, Appellant, vs. B. F., Respondent. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-0951 Considered and ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS July 29, 2025 Kristin Harner, et al., Appellants, vs. FBL Financial Services, Inc., et al., Respondents, Guy J Dawson, ...