Opinions Archive

I. The 2025 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 (Supp. 2025) is not retroactive. II. Under provisions of Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 (2024), an employer is a person as defined by the statute. Reversed and remanded.

When the amount of damage caused by a contractor’s negligent construction of a home exceeds the amount of that contractor’s mechanic’s lien for the home, the homeowner’s defense of recoupment eliminates the lien, and the lien cannot serve as the basis for an award of attorney fees and costs to the contractor under Minnesota Statutes section 514.14 in a mechanic’s lien enforcement action. Reversed and remanded.

Quasi-judicial immunity applies to acts within the scope of a court-appointed receiver’s appointment, even when the receiver is alleged to have acted at the direction of a party and with an improper motive. Affirmed.

1. Because the appellant has injury-in-fact standing, whether she is a “shareholder” for the purpose of her shareholder action does not implicate her standing to sue, but instead implicates the legal sufficiency of her claims. 2. The respondents forfeited any argument that the appellant’s complaint failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Reversed and remanded.

1. An insured does not establish a justiciable controversy sufficient to support a declaratory judgment claim by alleging only that it demanded appraisal and tolling of the limitations period and that the insurance company had not agreed to either demand, when the insurance company was not yet obligated to respond. 2. An insured does not establish a justiciable controversy sufficient to support a breach-of-contract claim by alleging that an insurance company’s future denial of an appraisal demand or future refusal to pay an appraisal award would breach the insurance policy. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

An applicant’s appeal from a determination of ineligibility for unemployment benefits that is filed after the statutory deadline in Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2022), must be dismissed as untimely by an unemployment law judge under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(c) (2022), who does not have discretion to consider the applicant’s explanation for the late appeal. Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Erik Lawrence Bader, Respondent, Washington County, Appellant. SPECIAL TERM ORDER ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of the Petition of Debra L. Peterson. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A26-1003 Considered and decided by Frisch, ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re Jessica Marie Beske, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jessica Marie Beske, Petitioner. SPECIAL ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re Appeal of Michael S. Margulies and Newton RES LLC's Request for Approval of Interim Use Permit. SPECIAL TERM ORDER ...