Opinions Archive

The Department of Revenue's notice of a tax order sent to the taxpayer by regular, non-certified, mail satisfies due process.

A letter contesting a notice of zoning violation is not a "request" as defined in Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 1(c) (2020), because it is not on an agency application form and does not clearly identify a request for governmental approval of an action. Therefore, the automatic approval provision in Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a) (2020), does not apply to respondents' letter contesting a notice of zoning violation. Reversed.

Although Minnesota Statutes § 617.261 (2018), prohibits more than obscenity, it survives strict scrutiny and, therefore, is a constitutional restriction on speech. Reversed and remanded.

1. The presence of both a no-reliance and an integration clause in a settlement agreement does not as a matter of law bar a subsequent claim for fraudulent inducement of that settlement agreement based on alleged oral misrepresentations unless there are express terms in the settlement agreement that contradict the alleged oral misrepresentations. 2. A claim for fraudulent inducement of a settlement agreement does not constitute an impermissible attack on the judgment resulting from that settlement agreement.

In this post-dissolution proceeding, appellant-father, pro se, challenges the district court’s determination that appellant is a frivolous litigant. Because we see no abuse of discretion in that determination, we affirm.

In this appeal from the district court’s denial of her post-dissolution motions, appellant mother argues that the district court (1) abused its discretion by denying her  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. motion to reduce respondent father’s spousal maintenance award, (2) abused its discretion by denying her motion to reduce her child support obligation, (3) erred by failing to adequately address her motions related to legal custody decision-making, and (4) abused its discretion by denying her motion for amended findings. We affirm.

In these consolidated appeals, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to forgive greater portions of bond-forfeiture penalties. We affirm.

Appellant Knife River Corporation applied for a conditional use permit to mine within respondent Whited Township’s limits. After the Township Board met to discuss the permit and hear from the public, the Board denied the permit. Knife River argues that the Board failed to follow adequate procedures, resulting in the permit being approved as a matter of law. By notice of related appeal, the Township challenges the district court’s determination that Knife River’s permit application was a “request,” triggering the 60-day deadline under Minnesota Statute section 15.99 (2018). Because the application was subject to the 60-day rule, but the Board followed the proper statutory and local requirements in processing and issuing a decision on the permit, we affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of his legal-malpractice complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Appellant’s complaint alleges facts from two prior legal actions. His legal-malpractice claim hinges on his allegation that respondents negligently advised him to enter a guilty plea and obtain a stay of adjudication in his criminal case and that doing so would not affect his civil-rights claim against the officers involved. Relying on this advice, appellant alleges he entered a guilty plea and obtained a stay of adjudication, but later suffered the dismissal of his civil-rights claim based on his admission of guilt. Because the district court correctly determined that appellant’s criminal proceedings did not involve a final adjudication on the merits, and therefore, did not collaterally estop appellant’s underlying civil-rights claim, we affirm.

In this direct appeal from a conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence and inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury in closing argument. Appellant also makes several pro se arguments, including that (1) his conviction is supported by insufficient evidence; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) the district court erred in sentencing; (4) the district court erred by failing to provide him a second court- appointed attorney; (5) the district court exhibited bias against him; (6) trial counsel exhibited bias against him; and (7) additional claims of prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.