Appellant insured challenged the District Court’s order vacating his no-fault arbitration award, arguing that the District Court erred by applying Minn. Stat. § 62Q.75, subd. 3, to bar his claim for no-fault benefits. Appellant also contended that the District Court erred by vacating respondent insurer’s obligation to pay arbitration fees. The Court of Appeals held that Minn. Stat. § 62Q.75, subd. 3, applies in the no-fault context and may bar an insured’s claim for medical-expense benefits from his no-fault insurer if the statute’s application results in the insured not suffering a “loss” as defined in Minn. Stat. § 65B.54, subd. 1. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
A17-0314 W. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Nguyen (Hennepin County)
In this declaratory-judgment action, appellant/cross-respondent city challenged the District Court’s ruling that its road assessment was unlawful. By notice of related appeal, respondent/cross-appellant developer challenged the District Court’s determinations that its temporary regulatory-takings claim was moot, and that its subdivision application was not approved by operation of law. The Court of Appeals held that a statutory city lacks express or implied authority under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2a, to impose a road assessment as a condition for its approval of a developer’s subdivision application. Affirmed.
A16-1937 Harstad v. City of Woodbury (Washington County)
Child Support; Income
Appellant challenged the District Court’s order granting county’s motion to modify child support, arguing that it was error to (1) attribute his corporation’s retained income to him for calculation of child support and (2) require him to provide and pay for the full cost of medical and dental coverage for the dependent children. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in including corporation’s retained profits in appellant’s gross income or in ordering him to obtain and maintain medical coverage. Affirmed.
A17-0024 Stier v. Peterson (Mower County)
Parenting Time; Modification
Appellant-father sought reversal of two District Court orders amending a parenting-time schedule, denying his motion to hold respondent-mother in contempt of court, and ordering mother to pay certain extracurricular expenses. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s motion to strike the guardian ad litem’s report, by modifying the parenting-time schedule, by denying appellant’s motion to hold mother in contempt of court, or by ordering mother to pay only some of the extracurricular reimbursement requests submitted by father. Affirmed.
A16-1444 Swenson v. Pedri (Dakota County)
This was an appeal and related appeal from the District Court’s ruling on the motion for a temporary injunction against enforcement of an employee-leave ordinance adopted by respondent City of Minneapolis brought by appellants Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, together with other employers and business associations. The chamber argued that the District Court abused its discretion by declining to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance in its entirety. By notice of related appeal, the city argued that the District Court abused its discretion by granting the temporary injunction with respect to any “employer resident outside the geographic boundaries” of Minneapolis. The Court of Appeals found that, based on its findings that likelihood of success and public-policy considerations favored the city, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance in its entirety. Furthermore, in view of the District Court’s unchallenged findings on irreparable harm and the balance of harms, which favored the chamber, reversal of the order enjoining the enforcement of the ordinance as to nonresident employers would not be warranted. Affirmed.
A17-0131 Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County)
On appeal from judgment in favor of respondent on her disability-discrimination and reprisal claims, appellant asserted that the District Court erred by: (1) dismissing her disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims on summary judgment based on the determination that she could not perform an essential function of her job; (2) determining that her disability-discrimination claims were barred after November 20, 2012, when appellant was totally and permanently disabled for purposes of receiving disability benefits; (3) finding, following a court trial, that respondent did not commit reprisal; (4) failing to admit appellant’s medical records at trial; and (5) awarding respondent costs and fees for an expert witness. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s contrary representations to the Railroad Retirement Board judicial estopped her from asserted that she was a qualified disabled person after November 20, 2012, that the District Court’s findings with respect to appellant’s reprisal claim were not clearly erroneous, that the District Court did admit and consider her medical records, and the award of expert costs and fees was proper. Affirmed.
A16-2035 Grosch v. Soo Line R.R. Co. (Hennepin County)
Relator challenged respondent-city’s revocation of his rental license, arguing that the revocation was not supported by the record. The Court of Appeals concluded that the interests of justice did not require consideration of relator’s constitutional arguments for the first time on appeal, that relator received notice of the management plan and its implications, and that the license revocation affected the listed owner of the property and relator’s partner in the listed owner. Affirmed.
A16-1993 Zeman v. City of Minneapolis (Minneapolis Dep’t of Regulatory Servs.)
Family or Household Member
In this appeal from his conviction of felony domestic assault, appellant argued that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant was his family or household member and that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting certain relationship evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the victim’s testimony that appellant was her boyfriend and that they had been dating for five months was sufficient to support a finding that she was a family or household member. Affirmed.
A16-1888 State v. Powell (Hennepin County)
On appeal from her felony theft convictions, appellant argued that the District Court committed reversible error by admitting hearsay evidence regarding the stolen property’s value and that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the stolen property’s value was more than $1,000. The Court of Appeals held that the victim’s statement at trial that she had paid $2,000 for the stolen property was not an out of court statement, and thus not hearsay. Furthermore, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the value of the stolen property was more than $1,000. Affirmed.
A16-2079 State v. Mulvihill (Hennepin County)
Prior Inconsistent Statements
Appellant challenged his conviction for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court erred in admitting his brother’s prior recorded statement identifying him. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because brother’s prior inconsistent statement was not given under oath, the District Court erred when it admitted the recorded statement as substantive evidence. Reversed and remanded.
A16-1693 State v. Abdullah (Ramsey County)
Illegal Firearms Possession
Appellant challenged his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by an ineligible person, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of constructive possession to support the conviction. The Court of Appeals concluded that evidence that appellant was the backseat passenger in his wife’s car, and that a rifle and spent casings were found in the backseat, was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was in constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition. Affirmed.
A16-1636 State v. Yang (Anoka County)
Appellant heard the implied-consent advisory and agreed to submit a breath sample after police arrested him for driving drunk. His breath sample registered an alcohol concentration more than three times the per se intoxication limit. The state charged appellant with two counts of driving while impaired, which appellant moved to dismiss. The District Court denied his motion twice and later found him guilty. Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his motion, arguing that the deputy’s failure to advise him about his warrant rights under the implied-consent statute violated his due process rights. The Court of Appeals held that Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2, does not require a warrant advisement and the advisory was not misleading. Affirmed.
A17-0276 State v. Hammers (Carver County)
Appellant challenged his impaired-driving conviction on the ground that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood test in light of Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), which held that that the search-incident-to-arrest exception and implied consent did not justify a warrantless blood test. The Court of Appeals held that appellant’s judgment of conviction was not final at the time of Birchfield’s release, as it was announced after appellant’s adjudication of guilt, but before sentencing. Reversed and remanded.
A16-1840 State v. Blumke (Swift County)
Obstructing Legal Process
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Appellant challenged her conviction of obstructing legal process, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she obstructed, hindered, or prevented the police officers’ execution of arrest warrants. She contended that reversal was required because her conduct was not directed at the police, did not substantially frustrate their search, and did not occur in their presence. The District Court concluded that appellant obstructed legal process because she placed a television in front of an access panel with the intention of frustrating the police officers’ search efforts and hindering their ability to execute arrest warrants on an individual who was hiding in an area behind the access panel. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s actions were sufficient to support a conviction for obstructing legal process. Affirmed.
A16-1767 State v. Hamdi (Hennepin County)
In this appeal from his sentence following a probation violation, appellant argued that the District Court (1) erred by failing to apply the analysis set forth in State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980), before revoking a stay of adjudication and imposing a stay of imposition and (2) incorrectly calculated his jail credit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence modification as an intermediate sanction for a probation violation but found error with the determination of appellant’s jail credit. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A17-0228 State v. Thompson (Carver County)
Right to Complete Defense
Appellant challenged his convictions of criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the District Court committed reversible error by (1) excluding certain evidence in violation of his constitutional right to present a complete defense, and (2) entering multiple convictions. The District Court concluded that appellant’s testimony regarding the content of the messages between the victim and her boyfriend constituted evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that that the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to any error in the exclusion of that testimony, but that the court erred in entering multiple convictions. Affirmed in part and remanded.
A16-1902 State v. Gbor (Hennepin County)
Appellant challenged his resentencing on multiple convictions of prostitution-related offenses following a remand from this court, arguing that (1) the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission exceeded its authority by establishing a sentence enhancement based upon a prior human-trafficking conviction; and (2) his sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. The Court of Appeals held that the commission did not exceed its authority, and that appellant’s 396-month sentence did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of his conduct. Affirmed.
A17-0132 State v. Washington-Davis (Ramsey County)