Opinions Archive

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants’ motion to permissively intervene in a Child in Need of Protection or Services action in juvenile court pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Protection Procedure 34.02. 2. A petition for third-party custody filed in juvenile court is non-cognizable and is instead properly construed as a petition for a transfer of legal and physical custody, which may only be filed by a party to the juvenile court action. 3. A holding in a court of appeals opinion that is advisory in nature and goes beyond the narrow issues implicated in the orders giving rise to the appeal falls outside the appropriate scope of appellate review and warrants this court, in the exercise of its supervisory authority, vacating that portion of the opinion. Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

1. The tax court had subject matter jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s case because each of the counts in the taxpayer’s complaint concerned the valuation of the subject property or the property tax assessment process, which are claims under Minnesota state tax law. 2. The tax court did not err in dismissing the four counts in the taxpayer’s complaint because each of those counts was within the scope of Minnesota Statutes section 278.01, which provides the exclusive remedy for such claims. 3. The tax court did not err when it dismissed the taxpayer’s valuation claim at trial because the taxpayer did not overcome the statutory presumption of validity of the county’s assessed value of the subject property. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

The balancing test established in Price v. Sheppard, 239 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1976), and affirmed in Jarvis v. Levine, 418 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 1988), which requires a district court to find that an intrusive treatment is both necessary and reasonable before it can be administered to a civilly committed patient, adequately addresses whether the intrusive treatment is a “treatment necessary to preserve the life or health of any committed patient” under Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 6(b). Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Petitioner, vs. Lusvin Jonathan Mutzus Tacatic, Respondent. ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Stacey Vazquez, as Trustee for the next of kin of decedent Dedrick Vazquez, et al., Respondents, vs. Polaris Inc, Petitioner, ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Michael Steel. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A26-0128 Considered and decided by Frisch, ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Todd Malecha, et al., Respondents, vs. Robert J. Thordson, et al., Appellants. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A26-0283 Considered ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Larissa Fisherman, Relator, vs. Eagles Wing, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. ...

Under the first-degree criminal-damage-to-property statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1 (2020), when a defendant is prosecuted under clause (4), the value of any property damaged by the defendant within any six-month period may be aggregated if the alleged reduction in the value of the property for each offense is more than $1,000. Reversed and remanded.

A judgment in favor of a tenant renting receivership property and against a receiver that results from a receiver-initiated action against the tenant to preserve the receivership property is part of the “expenses of preserving, protecting, or disposing of” the receivership property under Minnesota Statutes section 576.51, subdivision 1(1) (2024). Reversed and remanded; motion to supplement denied and motion to dismiss granted in part.