skip to content
Primary navigation

Opinions Archive

Results 1 - 10 of 1300
When a valid contract exists between a client and an attorney and the attorney completes the work under the terms of the contract and achieves a settlement or recovery, the attorney is entitled to fees under the terms of the contract and does not release his attorney lien under Minn. Stat. § 481.13, subd. 1 (2016), by returning the settlement check to the insurance company pending resolution of a fee dispute.
Date: December 11, 2017
When Minn. Stat. § 429.081 (2016) is read in conjunction with Minn. Stat. § 429.061 (2016), the unambiguous statutory language provides that a property owner who, without reasonable cause, fails to sign a written objection to an assessment and to either (1) file the objection with the municipal clerk prior to the assessment hearing or (2) present the objection to the presiding officer at the assessment hearing, is precluded from appealing the assessment to the district court.
Date: December 11, 2017
Minnesota Statutes section 60A.41(a) (2016), prohibits an insurer from subrogating against its own insured for the same loss even when the insured is not a named insured in the policy.
Date: December 11, 2017
Relator challenges a decision by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) on reconsideration that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he did not timely appeal respondent’s determinations of ineligibility and fraud. Relator argues that the ULJ erred because: (1) he had moved to a new residence and did not receive notice of respondent’s determinations and (2) he provided respondent with his email address. We affirm.
Date: December 11, 2017
Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment. Relator argues that respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) is collaterally estopped from denying her benefits because it previously determined that she was eligible for benefits. Relator also argues that she quit for a good reason caused by her employer. We affirm.
Date: December 11, 2017
Appellant challenges the district court’s finding that he was absent without justification from trial and its decision to proceed with trial in his absence. Additionally, appellant argues that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by ordering him to serve his year and a day sentence for violating a restraining order consecutive to his 60- month sentence for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. We affirm.
Date: December 11, 2017
Appellant challenges an award of prejudgment interest. Because the district court erred when it ruled that prejudgment interest accrued from the date of service of the amended complaint, not the date the claim arose, we reverse and remand.
Date: December 11, 2017
Appellant Amanda Kay Schrupp appeals from her convictions of aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery and aiding and abetting first-degree burglary and her 144-month sentence, arguing that (1) the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting, (2) the district court plainly erred when it did not bifurcate closing arguments, (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove that three or more persons actively participated in the robbery, and (4) the district court abused its discretion in imposing an upward sentencing departure. We affirm.
Date: December 11, 2017
In this appeal from the termination of his parental rights, appellant challenges the district court’s determination that he is palpably unfit to be a parent and that his child was neglected and in foster care. We affirm.
Date: December 11, 2017
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his petition for postconviction relief on the grounds that his claims were time-barred, procedurally barred, and meritless. We affirm.
Date: December 11, 2017
back to top