Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Precedential
Municipalities
Police
This appeal required a determine as to whether the District Court properly granted the extraordinary legal remedy of mandamus. Appellants, the Minneapolis City Council and mayor, challenged a writ of mandamus issued by the District Court that required appellants to hire additional sworn police officers. Appellants asserted that the District Court erred by interpreting the city’s charter to impose a clear duty on appellants to continuously employ a minimum number of sworn police officers and by using mandamus to control the mayor’s exercise of discretion in hiring officers.
The Court of Appeals held that (1) the Minneapolis City Charter clearly imposes a duty on the city council to continuously fund a police force with a minimum number of sworn police officers, but (2) the mayor’s duty under the Minneapolis City Charter to establish and maintain the police department is a discretionary duty. The charter does not clearly impose a duty on the mayor to continuously employ a minimum number of sworn police officers. The District Court therefore erred when it concluded that appellants have a clear duty to continuously employ a minimum number of officers and by granting mandamus on that basis. Reversed.
A21-0931 Spann v. Minneapolis City Council (Hennepin County)
Civil Nonprecedential
Civil Commitment
Mental Illness; Risk of Harm
The District Court civilly committed appellant and ordered that he be involuntarily treated with neuroleptic drugs after finding that he posed a substantial risk of harm to himself and that he needed medical treatment for his psychiatric disorder. Addressing appellant’s appeal from the order of commitment and the order that he be involuntarily treated with drugs, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court’s finding that appellant posed a risk of harm was inadequate to support the commitment because the only harm the findings referred to was the psychiatric disorder that resulted from appellant’s failing to take the drugs, not harm that resulted from the disorder. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A21-1201 In re Civil Commitment of Russell (Winona County)
Domestic Relations
Child Custody; Evidence
This case arose from a child custody dispute between the parents of two children. Father appealed from the District Court’s judgment granting mother sole physical and legal custody and affording him limited parenting time. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not violate father’s due process rights by requiring him to submit deposition testimony during pandemic-related, in-person restrictions rather than allow him to examine witnesses at a trial using online technology. The Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a child custody evaluation from evidence. Affirmed.
A20-1548 Friesen v. Friesen (Washington County)
Domestic Relations
Dissolution; Income
In this marital-dissolution appeal, appellant-husband argued that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) including husband’s income from summer-research grants in the calculation of his gross income, (2) awarding respondent-wife temporary spousal maintenance, and (3) failing to include the spousal-maintenance award in wife’s gross income—and not deducting it from husband’s gross income—when calculating child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s inclusion of husband’s summer-grant work in husband’s gross income and the grant of temporary spousal maintenance, but reverse and remanded the child-support determination because the District Court erred by failing to include the spousal-maintenance award in the parties’ gross incomes for purposes of calculating child support. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A21-0343 LaPara v. LaPara (Anoka County)
Drivers’ License Revocation
Hearing
Appellant appealed the District Court’s order sustaining the revocation of his driving privileges. Appellant argued that the District Court erred by asking questions during the hearing and that he satisfied his burden of proof by presenting sufficient evidence of his physical inability to test. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not commit reversible error by inquiring about appellant’s prior DWI charges during the implied-consent hearing and did not clearly err in finding that appellant failed to sustain his burden of proving the affirmative defense of physical inability. Affirmed.
A21-0716 Jackson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety (Ramsey County)
Landlord & Tenant
Executive Orders
Appellant-landlords challenged the District Court’s dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) of their petition for a writ of mandamus and their complaint for declaratory judgment, arguing that the District Court erred in determining that (1) respondent Minnesota Executive Council is not a legal entity subject to suit, and (2) the governor’s emergency executive orders, which temporarily limited the ability of residential landlords to evict tenants in specified circumstances, did not constitute a “commandeering” of private properties. The Court of Appeals concluded that Minn. Stat. ch. 9 did not provide authority for the Executive Council to sue or be sued and the governor did not “commandeer” property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 12.34, subd. 1(2), of the Minnesota Emergency Management Act of 1996 (MEMA) by issuing executive orders during a peacetime emergency that imposed a temporary moratorium on eviction actions. Affirmed.
A21-0869 Doran 610 Apts., LLC v. State by Walz (Ramsey County)
Landlord & Tenant
Waiver
Appellant-tenant challenged the District Court’s order and judgment evicting her from her apartment. Tenant argued that respondent-landlord’s acceptance of rent legally waived past lease breaches and the District Court erred in amending the complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s finding that the landlord did not intend to waive tenant’s lease breaches by accepting rent was not clearly erroneous, and the District Court was within its discretion to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial. Affirmed.
A21-0884 Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp. v. LittleGhost (Hennepin County)
Municipalities
Roads
Appellant town challenged the District Court’s summary judgment determination that the town board’s establishment of a cartway across respondent landowner’s parcel was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Court of Appeals held that whether an easement provides “meaningful” access is a question of fact for the town board—not the reviewing court—to resolve, and concluded that the town board’s exercise of discretion was supported by evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was not an error of law. Reversed and remanded.
A21-0903 Idyllwood Homeowners Assoc. v. Town of Ideal (Crow Wing County)
Orders for Protection
Due Process
Appellant challenged the District Court’s issuance of an order for protection, arguing that the District Court violated his right to procedural due process. Noting that appellant admitted that he broke into the complainant’s bedroom, the Court of Appeals failed to establish a procedural-due-process violation or other error justifying relief arising out of appellant’s inability to transmit videos to the District Court during the hearing. Affirmed.
A21-1176 Steffenhagen v. Castrillon (Hennepin County)
Orders for Protection
Evidence
Respondent petitioned the District Court for an order for protection against her former husband, appellant. The District Court granted the petition and issued an order for protection. Appellant appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by admitting three types of inadmissible evidence. Noting that the District Court considered and used hearsay evidence as substantive evidence supporting a finding that appellant had told the son that he was going to shoot respondent and her boyfriend, the Court of Appeals concluded that District Court erred by admitting and relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and the error was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.
A21-0910 Swanson v. Swanson (Hennepin County)
Unemployment Benefits
Employment Misconduct
Relator challenged an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was terminated for employment misconduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the ULJ’s determination that relator was discharged for failing to notify his employer about his absences, which constitutes employment misconduct as defined by Minnesota law. Affirmed.
A21-0608 Johnson v. Fitness Int’l LLC (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)
Unemployment Benefits
Employment Misconduct
Relator challenged the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for the misconduct of failing to report to work or perform work remotely. Relator asserted that (1) he did not commit employment misconduct and (2) the ULJ should have accepted evidence that relator submitted after the hearing. Noting that relator was explicitly required to keep in contact with respondent and log his hours and work and failed to do so, the Court of Appeals concluded that his conduct constituted employment misconduct. There was also no abuse of discretion in the ULJ’s declining to order an additional hearing or in denying reconsideration. Affirmed.
A21-0822 Kirchner v. Design Ready Controls (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)
Unemployment Benefits
Quit
Relator challenged the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his job as a gas meter relight technician and did not meet any statutory exception to ineligibility based on that quit. Relator argued that he had a good reason for quitting caused by his employer’s failure to take appropriate precautions against the spread of COVID-19 and that it was medically necessary for him to quit. Noting that relator told respondent he intended to quit on the date the first COVID case was confirmed in Minnesota, and that relator testified that he had never talked to respondent about COVID prior to quitting, the Court of Appeals agreed that that neither exception applied. Affirmed.
A21-0852 Barlow v. RMR Servs., LLC (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)
Zoning
Nonconforming Uses
Appellants appealed from the District Court’s order granting partial summary judgment and injunctive relief in favor of respondent City of Shorewood. Appellants argued that (1) the District Court erred in determining as a matter of law that their dock violated city ordinances; (2) summary judgment should not have been granted because there existed disputed issues of material fact; and (3) the District Court should not have granted injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because Shorewood, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 1201.03(14)(b) (2006) was in effect before and during April 2017, it was controlling, and appellants installed a dock in April 2017 that was lawful under the 2006 code. Reversed and remanded.
A21-0992 City of Shorewood v. Sanschagrin (Hennepin County)
Criminal Nonprecedential
Bail Bonds
Forfeiture
In this consolidated appeal, appellant-surety challenged the District Court’s decision to impose penalties for the reinstatement of bail bonds that had been forfeited when the defendant failed to appear. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it reinstated and discharged 50% of the bond imposed for 2019 first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges and 90% of the bond imposed for 2018 charges. Affirmed.
A21-0862, A21-0873 State v. Roberson (Dakota County)
Evidence
Right to Complete Defense
Defendant challenged his convictions of indecent exposure and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the District Court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense at trial by prevented him from testifying that his drug use caused him to black out on the day of the incident. He also challenged his sentence, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing a presumptive sentence and by including an out-of-state conviction in his criminal-history score. Noting that the excluded evidence was unrelated to defendant’s theory that he blacked out due to drug use, the Court of Appeals concluded that the exclusion could not have violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. However, the state did not meet its burden to establish the facts necessary to justify consideration of the Iowa conviction, and the District Court thus abused its discretion by including that conviction in defendant’s criminal-history score. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A21-0497 State v. Keltner (Hennepin County)
Plea Withdrawal
Intelligent
In this appeal from the District Court’s order denying his petition for postconviction relief, petitioner argued that his guilty plea was not intelligent and that the District Court therefore erred in denying his request to either modify the terms of his probation or permit withdrawal of his guilty plea to prevent a manifest injustice. Noting that petitioner did discuss the effect of a guilty plea on his ability to travel outside the United States with defense counsel before entering his plea, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s plea was intelligent as he was aware that his guilty plea might have an impact on his ability to travel outside the United States because he would need to obtain permission before leaving the country. Affirmed.
A21-0759 Ijong v. State (Olmsted County)
Postconviction Relief
Witness Recantation
This appeal followed the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s second petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner argued that the District Court erred by determining that he was not entitled to a new trial based on a witness’s alleged recantation of trial testimony. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in determining that the witness’s statements in his affidavit were not credible based on their inconsistency with his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and thus did not abuse its discretion by determining that petitioner failed to meet the requirements for a new trial based on witness recantation. Affirmed.
A21-0789 Glass v. State (Ramsey County)
