Opinions Archive

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2025 Dinh Thong, Respondent, vs. Ali Mehralian, Appellant. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-0490 Considered and decided ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2025 Maxwell Harvey, Respondent, vs. Aubrey Dudley, et al., Defendants, Josh Barlage, et al., Appellants. ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison, Respondent, vs. American Petroleum Institute, et al., Defendants, ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS April 23, 2025 La Shawn Hankton, Respondent, vs. WRA 1276, LLC et al., Relators, St. Paul Department of Human Rights ...

The district court abused its discretion by failing to consider a defendant's ability to pay restitution, as required by Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(2) (2024), and State v. Wigham, 967 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 2021). Reversed and remanded.

Minn. Stat. § 484.014, subd. 3(a)(6) (Supp. 2023), is facially unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by mandating district courts to expunge an eviction case court file based on a defendant filing a motion seeking that relief, infringing on the judiciary's inherent authority to decide cases and control its own records. Reversed and remanded.

The requirement in Minnesota Statutes section 117.145 (2024) to serve a notice of appeal from an award of damages in an eminent-domain proceeding on "all respondents and all other parties to the proceedings having an interest in any parcel described in the appeal" requires service on all respondents who must be notified under Minnesota Statutes section 117.115, subdivision 2 (2024), of the filing of the commissioners' report that sets forth the award subject to appeal. Reversed and remanded.

1. A district court may award attorney fees and litigation expenses under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or if the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly become so, as this standard is set out in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). 2. A district court abuses its discretion by awarding attorney fees and litigation expenses under the Christiansburg standard when an ADA plaintiff’s claim survives motions for summary judgment and for judgment as a matter of law but ultimately does not prevail at trial. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant argues that the record does not support the district court's determinations that (1) the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, (2) there were statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights, and (3) it is in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights. We discern no basis to disturb the district court's decision and therefore affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree controlled-substance sale, arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of appellant's prior controlled-substance-sale conviction, an implied threat by appellant, and a surveillance video; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing and rebuttal arguments; and (3) the district court violated his due-process rights by limiting his cross- examination of a state's witness. We affirm.