Opinions Archive

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 for relief from his indeterminate civil commitment. Relying on the supreme court's decision In re Civil Commitment of Benson, 12 N.W.3d 711 (Minn. 2024), appellant argues that (1) he is entitled to relief under Rule 60.02(d) because Benson recognizes a preexisting right to self-representation in civil-commitment proceedings, and the district court violated this right by appointing counsel for appellant's initial commitment proceedings, thereby violating appellant's due-process rights; and (2) he is entitled to relief under Rule 60.02(e) because Benson constitutes a change in relevant decisional law. Because appellant did not object to the appointment of counsel, request to waive counsel, or otherwise seek to represent himself during his initial commitment proceedings, he has not established that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60.02(d) or (e), and we affirm.

Appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court's suppression order, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that (1) the police canine's head entering the automobile through a window and sniffing for drugs constituted a search requiring probable cause and (2) the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's order requiring him to pay $16,688.14 in restitution. He argues that the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the contested restitution hearing such that there was no factual support for the district court's restitution award. Because appellant did not raise these arguments in district court, we affirm.

Appellant-lessee rented commercial property in a shopping center from respondents-lessors. The lease contained a clause permitting respondents to relocate appellant to another part of the center. After respondents invoked the relocation clause and appellant failed to relocate, respondents terminated the lease. Appellant did not vacate the property. Respondents brought an eviction action, and the district court granted summary judgment in their favor. Appellant now challenges the district court's summary judgment order, arguing that its performance under the relocation clause was excused by the lease's force majeure clause, by the respondents' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and under the common-law doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose. Appellant also argues that the district court made legal and evidentiary errors in its order. We affirm.

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges respondent city's quasi-judicial decision denying relator's application for a cannabis retail registration and affirming its issuance of such a registration to respondent alternative applicant. Relator asserts that the city's decision is arbitrary because (A) neither the relevant municipal ordinance nor the application materials provide a tie-breaking procedure for identically scored applications and (B) the city relied on external, unpublished factors not permitted by the municipal ordinance. We affirm.

In this marital dissolution appeal, appellant-husband challenges the district court's determinations pertaining to (1) child custody and parenting time; (2) child support; (3) classification, valuation, and division of marital property; and (4) payment of the custody evaluator's fee. We affirm.

Relator-employee challenges the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by concluding that he was discharged for failure to obtain required licensure and insubordination rather than districtwide budget cuts. Because relator forfeited a portion of his argument on appeal and the record reasonably supports the ULJ's determination, we affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's order denying his motion to correct his sentences in three separate matters. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he received felony-level sentences in each case because his convictions were deemed gross misdemeanors based on the length of the imprisonment terms that the court imposed. We affirm.

A laboratory under contract to preserve sperm for use in a married couple's medically assisted effort to conceive a child destroyed the sperm before the designated contract termination. The couple sued the laboratory seeking emotional damages for alleged medical malpractice. The district court dismissed the couple's civil complaint at summary judgment, determining that the laboratory's breach of contract cannot as a matter of law support damages for emotional harm. On appeal, the couple argues that the laboratory's premature destruction of the stored sperm breached a medical duty and, alternatively, that either destroying their sperm or ending their ability to conceive warrants emotional damages based on a physical injury or the wanton invasion of their rights. Because the couple's theory fails as a matter of law under current precedent, we affirm.

DOB Properties LLC applied for a conditional-use permit so that it could build a planned-unit development in a rural-residential zoning district. The Douglas County Board of Commissioners denied the application. We conclude that the county board's decision is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, we affirm.