Supreme Court Digest: Aug. 27, 2025

Civil

Tax

Apportioned Income

Relator is a multinational company with lines of business in approximately 90 countries. Because relator conducted some, but not all, of its business activities in Minnesota in 2013, 2014, and 2015, relator’s sales attributable to Minnesota in those years must be apportioned. Under Minnesota law, there is a default method for apportioning sales found in Minn. Stat § 290.191, but the Commissioner of Revenue may apply an alternative method under § 290.20 if he shows that the default method does not fairly attribute income to Minnesota and that the alternative method does so. The question here was whether the Commissioner met the burden necessary to use an alternative apportionment method. The main dispute is how to apportion the receipts earned from forward exchange contract transactions; a hedging technique used by relator to protect its outstanding balances from foreign currency exchange risks.

The Supreme Court held that the Tax Court correctly found that the Commissioner satisfied his burden under § 290.20 by demonstrating that the general apportionment method in § 290.191 misrepresented relator’s Minnesota activities, and that an alternative formula—excluding gross receipts but including net income from forward exchange contracts—fairly represented relator’s Minnesota activities. Affirmed.

A24-1601 E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Revenue (Tax Court)

Criminal

Double Jeopardy

Mistrials

The question in this case was whether the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions prevented defendant from being retried following a mistrial declared during jury deliberations for charges including first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Since defendant requested a mistrial, he was required to prove that the district court judge induced, goaded, or provoked him into requesting the mistrial to obtain relief.

The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clauses do not bar retrial of a criminal defendant who requested and received a mistrial on all counts where the government did not induce, goad, or provoke the request for a mistrial. Affirmed.

A23-0947 State v. Lerma (Court of Appeals)

Illegal Firearm Possession

Statutory Amendments

This case presented two issues related to the ineligible person in possession of a firearm statute, Minn. Stat. § 624.713 (2024). The Minnesota Legislature amended the statute in 2003 to impose a lifetime firearm ban, instead of a 10-year ban, for individuals convicted of a crime of violence. Petitioner was charged in 2021 with violating the statute in its current, amended form. Petitioner entered a guilty plea and was convicted. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that (1) his conviction violated due process because he possessed his firearm in reliance upon his 2000 probation discharge order, which included a then-accurate statement that he was only subject to a 10-year ban on possessing a firearm, and (2) his guilty plea was invalid because in his factual basis, petitioner did not state that he knew he was ineligible to possess a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that (1) when a district court order accurately informs a defendant of their legal obligations under the then-existing version of § 624.713, subd. 1(2), which prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence from possessing firearms or ammunition, and the Legislature later modifies those obligations by amending the statute, the State does not violate a defendant’s due process rights by later charging the defendant for a violation of the amended statute; and (2) the crime of ineligible person in possession of a firearm, under § 624.713, subd. 1(2), does not require the State to prove the defendant’s knowledge of their ineligibility status, but rather their previous conviction of a crime of violence, as an element of the offense. Affirmed.

A23-1524 Underwood v. State (Court of Appeals)