Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Recent News
Home / eadvantage / Supreme Court Digest: Sept. 13, 2017
These opinions were released by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Digest: Sept. 13, 2017



Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Appeals

This appeal presented the question of how to calculate the filing deadline for an appeal in a juvenile protection proceeding when a party is served with notice of the filing of the District Court’s order by two different forms of service that result in two different deadlines for the filing of a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely. Confirming an earlier order, the Supreme Court held that, because appellant timely appealed from the District Court’s order terminating his parental rights based on the court administrator’s service of notice by mail, the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing the appeal as untimely. Vacated.

A17-0497 In re Welfare of Child of R.K. (Court of Appeals)





Disorderly Conduct


This case required a determination as to whether the part of Minnesota’s disorderly-conduct statute that prohibits “disturb[ing]” assemblies or meetings, Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(2), is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct for disturbing two city council meetings. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the statute was constitutional. The Supreme Court held that (1) Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(2), is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is substantially overbroad; and (2) because there is no reasonable narrowing construction of Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(2), the remedy for the First Amendment violation is to invalidate the statute. Reversed and remanded.

A15-0005 State v. Hensel (Court of Appeals)





Attorney Discipline


Christopher Ozioma Obasi’s conditional reinstatement was revoked, and he was indefinitely suspended.

A16-1132, A16-1718 In re Obasi




Line-Item Vetoes

In this dispute over the Governor’s use of a line-item veto, the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s exercise of his line-item veto power over the appropriation for the Legislature’s biennial budget was constitutional under Minn. Const. art. 4 § 1, but required the parties to participate in good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute through a mediator.

A17-1142 Ninetieth Minn. State Senate v. Dayton


Leave a Reply