Supreme Court Digest: May 28, 2020

Civil

Defamation

Legislative Immunity

The question presented in this case was whether legislative immunity protects the statements made in a letter a state representative sent to a city mayor. Respondent city attorney sued the state representative for defamation per se based on statements in the letter. State representative moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const. art. IV, § 10, and under the legislative immunity provision in Minn. Stat. § 540.13. The District Court denied the state representative’s motion to dismiss based on legislative immunity, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that (1) because the state legislator’s letter to a city mayor was not related to any business pending before the Minnesota Legislature, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Minnesota Constitution did not provide immunity for the state legislator; and (2) because the letter was not sent pursuant to the legislator’s duties, legislative immunity under Minn. Stat. § 540.13 does not apply. Affirmed.

A18-1694 Olson v. Lesch (Court of Appeals)

Orders

General Rules of Practice

Amendment

The Supreme Court promulgated amendments to these Rule 8.02(a) and 8.06 of these rules to clarify the standards and use of certain interpreters. The amendments are effective July 1, 2020.

ADM09-8009 In re Amends. to Rule 8 of Gen. R. Prac. for Dist. Ct.

Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals

Orders

The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals in this matter was affirmed without opinion.

A19-1481 Kohler v. Douglas County Hosp.