Court of Appeals Digest: Sept. 2, 2025

Civil Precedential

Consumer Protection

Standing

Appellant, a business offering consumers coupons and access to discounts on prescription drugs, challenged the District Court’s denial of its Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a) motion to dismiss this action for lack of standing. Respondent nonprofit alleged that appellant violated Minn. Stat. § 325F.784, which governs prescription-drug discount cards.

The Court of Appeals held that, under the plain and unambiguous language of Minn. Stat. § 325F.784, a plaintiff has statutory standing to sue without alleging that they have suffered an injury in fact. Affirmed.

A24-2031 Minn. Teamsters Serv. Bureau v. GoodRx, Inc. (Hennepin County)

Insurance

Affirmative Defenses

This appeal followed a jury verdict for appellant insured in a dispute over underinsured-motorist (UIM) coverage. Appellant asserted that the District Court: (1) abused its discretion in vacating a prior judgment for appellant in this case; (2) erred in determining that respondent insurer’s request to reduce the jury’s damages award based on the amount of money that appellant had recovered pursuant to the UIM tortfeasor’s insurance policy was not an affirmative defense that respondent needed to assert under Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.03; and (3) erred in granting respondent’s motion to deposit money with the District Court under Minn. R. Civ. P. 67.01.

The Court of Appeals held that, in an action by an insured against an underinsured-motorist (UIM) insurer for UIM benefits, rule 8.03 does not require the insurer to assert, as an affirmative defense, a request to reduce damages by the amount of money that the insured has recovered pursuant to the UIM tortfeasor’s insurance policy. Furthermore, the District Court acted within its discretion in vacating the prior judgment. But the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficient for meaningful appellate review of whether the District Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to deposit money with the District Court under rule 67.01. Affirmed in part and remanded.

A24-0743 Verros v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Dakota County)

Civil Nonprecedential

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Modification

Appellant-father challenged a District Court order modifying a prior custody order and granting sole legal and sole physical custody to respondent-mother. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court acted within its discretion by modifying the child-custody arrangement based on a change of circumstances due to child endangerment and the best interests of the children and did not abuse its discretion by not providing father a jury trial regarding custody. Affirmed.

A25-0514 Gissibl v. Gissibl (Dakota County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant mother challenged the District Court’s termination of her parental rights, contending that the statutory termination grounds on which the District Court relied were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Noting the findings that mother failed to comply with that case-plan requirement in any meaningful way and had admitted to using methamphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, GHB, and heroin in the time leading up to trial, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the conclusion that mother failed to comply with her court-ordered case plan. Affirmed.

A25-0070 In re Welfare of Child of A.N.C. (Wright County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-father challenged the District Court’s order terminating his parental rights, arguing that it abused its discretion when it determined that (1) he committed egregious harm; (2) he was palpably unfit to parent; and (3) terminating his parental rights was in child’s best interests. Noting the District Court found that the county presented substantial evidence that demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that father sexually abused one of his children, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A25-0177 In re Welfare of Child of J.J.S.I. (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Support; Modification

Appellant filed a motion to modify his child-support obligation, alleging a substantial change in his income and requesting a reduction in his child-support arrearages. The child support magistrate (CSM) granted appellant’s motion to reduce his child-support obligation but denied his request to reduce his child-support arrearages. The CSM also ordered appellant to make a monthly payment in a set amount to satisfy the arrearages. Appellant challenged the CSM’s order, arguing that the CSM abused her discretion when she did not reduce his arrearages and when calculating his monthly arrearage payment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the CSM did not abuse her discretion by declining to apply the parenting-expense adjustment when ordering appellant’s monthly payment on his arrearages. Affirmed.

A24-1066 County of Dakota ex rel. Hinz v. Rittweger (Dakota County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time;

Pro se appellant father asserted that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motions for parenting time and for costs and fees. Noting that evidence supported the District Court findings that mother was not keeping the children from father and that children did not want to exercise parenting time with father, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s parenting-time requests. Affirmed.

A25-0213 Volk v. Volk (Olmsted County)

Frivolous Litigants

Eligible Filings

Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s order determining that he was a frivolous litigant and imposing filing restrictions on him pursuant to Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 9, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to impose rule 9 frivolous-litigant relief based on an appellate court filing. The Court of Appeals held that a rule 9 sanction cannot be premised on an appellate court filing. Reversed.

A25-0052 Kusie v. Kusie (Hennepin County)

Municipalities

Immunity

Appellant challenged the summary-judgment dismissal of her tort claim against respondent-city arising out of respondent’s alleged negligent maintenance of the municipal sanitary sewer system. The District Court determined that the challenged governmental conduct was protected by discretionary-function immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6. Noting that the record did not support appellant’s assertion that the city conducted no maintenance at all on the sewer system. The Court of Appeals concluded that the challenged governmental conduct was the manner in which the city inspected, maintained, and repaired its sewer system, and that the city met its burden to show that the manner in which it inspected, maintained, and repaired its sewer system was the result of planning-level decisions. Thus, the challenged conduct was a discretionary function entitled to immunity. Affirmed.

A25-0075 Holper v. City of Gilman (Benton County)

Negligence

Duty of Care

A worker at respondent dairy opened a tall overhead barn door while appellant was repairing it, toppling appellant’s lift and sending him to the ground, where the falling lift crushed his foot. Appellant sued respondent for negligence. Respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that it owed no duty of care to appellant, an employee of an independent contractor. Appellant appealed, arguing principally that there were genuine factual questions about whether respondent, as a landowner, owed him a duty of care. The Court of Appeals concluded that there were factual issues as to whether respondent should have anticipated the harm to appellant despite the obvious nature of the danger. Reversed and remanded.

A24-2004 Pries v. Whitewater Dairy, LLC (Winona County)

Probate

Undue Influence

On appeal from the District Court’s order denying appellant’s request to invalidate the marriage between respondent and decedent, appellant argued that the District Court should have ruled that the marriage between respondent and decedent was void or, alternatively, used its equitable authority to void the marriage. The Court of Appeals concluded that, despite the fact that respondent was prohibited from contacting decedent under an ex parte HRO at the time of their marriage and that decedent was under a guardianship, their marriage was not void, as the guardianship was private and the lack of respondent and decedent’s ability to legally solemnize their marriage did not render the marriage void. And the District Court had no power to grant appellant equitable relief. Affirmed.

A24-1835 In re Estate of Cooper (Ramsey County)

Public Employees

Immunity

Appellant challenged the dismissal, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, of his negligence claims against respondents Metropolitan Council and one of its bus drivers for personal injuries suffered during an altercation with another passenger. The Court of Appeals concluded that the claims related to the bus driver’s conduct were barred by official and vicarious official immunity, but, on this record, Metropolitan Council did not met its burden to demonstrate statutory immunity applied. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A25-0459 Rickmyer v. Brooks (Hennepin County)

Trusts

Interpretation

The appellant-trustees appealed a District Court order interpreting the a trust. The trust provides that, if the donor passed away before his spouse, respondent, two subtrusts will be created—Trust A and Trust B. The trustees challenged the District Court’s interpretation of Trust B to require an annual distribution from Trust B so that respondent would receive at least $120,000 in income each year. The trustees argued that (1) the distribution amount was aspirational, meaning they were not required to distribute the full amount if Trust B lacked sufficient liquid funds in a given year and (2) they were allowed to consider sources of income other than those expressly identified in Trust B when they are determining the annual distribution amount. The Court of Appeals interpreted the trust as the District Court did. Affirmed.

A25-0194 In re Symens Revocable Trust (Blue Earth County)

Zoning

Conditional Use Permits

A county planning commission granted a property owner a conditional use permit to build a house on East Lake Sylvia below a natural bluff in an area governed by a comprehensive land-use plan that requires steep slopes to “be protected, as far as practical, in their natural, stable state.” A lake association appealed by certiorari, arguing that the county’s decision to grant the permit was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious because it failed to follow the comprehensive plan and applicable ordinance and because it lacks factual findings supported by adequate evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the county’s permit decision adequately addressed and complied with the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the finding challenged by the lake association had record support. Affirmed.

A24-1917 In re Arbor Creek Holdings, LLC (Wright County Plan. Comm’n)

Civil Order Opinions

Appeals

Briefing

Appellant appealed from a judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim of his complaint against his former wife, respondent, which sought repayment on home and credit card expenses. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant did not adequately brief a challenge to the District Court’s decision. Affirmed.

A25-0035 Mussehl v. Moen (Anoka County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Harassment

Appellant challenged the issuance of a harassment restraining order (HRO) in favor of his neighbor, respondent. Noting record evidence establishing that appellant persisted in contacting respondent after he was asked to discontinue contact, video recorded or photographed respondent, sat facing respondent for an extended period of time while she gardened, removed a wooden board from respondent’s privacy fence, and reached over the property fence to toss a heavy stone further onto respondent property, and that this conduct caused respondent to feel afraid and unsafe in her home, the Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the harassment finding. Affirmed.

A25-0095 Fengerl v. Martinco (Hennepin County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Harassment

Appellant challenged the issuance of a harassment restraining order (HRO) in favor of his neighbor, respondent. Noting record evidence that appellant followed respondent around her property while she was calling 911, parked vehicles by respondent’s property, and installed shining lights pointed toward respondent’s property, all of which resulted in respondent installing a privacy fence and tinting her kitchen window, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance of the HRO. Affirmed.

A25-0320 Perkins v. Lund (Houston County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Child Pornography Possession

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged his convictions for possession of pornographic works involving a minor with a prior conviction for possessing child pornography. He argued there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and challenged the admission of cyber tip evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that any of the three evidentiary bases presented by the state sufficiently supported that defendant knew the flash drive contained pornographic work involving minors. Affirmed.

A24-0860 State v. Hanson (Hennepin County)

Discovery

Brady Violations

Defendant challenged his convictions of failure to register as a predatory offender and violation of a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO), arguing that the District Court erred in determining that the state’s failure to disclose the source of a tip that led to his arrest was not a Brady violation because the information was attorney-client privileged. Noting the finding that the only information that defendant’s former attorney conveyed to the deputy prosecutor was the location of a public meeting at a gas station, and that this location could not be considered privileged, as meeting in a public space necessarily defeated the purpose of attorney-client privilege, the Court of Appeals concluded that the information conveyed by former attorney did not violate attorney-client privilege, and the state did not violate Brady because the information was not favorable, and the absence of the evidence did not cause prejudice. Affirmed.

A23-1800 State v. Heggs (Mower County)

Disorderly Conduct

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his disorderly conduct conviction. Noting evidence that defendant loudly yelled insults at a couple, spat noisily, and made a menacing laugh, the Court of Appeals concluded that the way defendant spoke and conducted himself disturbed an otherwise peaceful night and the record was sufficient to sustain his disorderly conduct conviction. Affirmed.

A24-1531 State v. Halling (Wright County)

Double Jeopardy

Mistrial

Defendant argued that his third-degree burglary and theft convictions must be reversed because a retrial, which led to his convictions, was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. He argued that (1) the District Court abused its discretion by sua sponte declaring a mistrial during his first trial without his consent and without a manifest necessity for doing so, and (2) the retrial violated his right against double jeopardy because the prosecutor intentionally provoked the mistrial. Noting that the record reflected that the District Court’s mistrial decision was not made rashly or altogether without consideration of alternatives, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declaring a mistrial. Furthermore, the state’s conduct did not provoke the mistrial. Affirmed.

A24-1629 State v. Abdi (Clay County)

Evidence

Prejudice

In this direct appeal from his convictions for criminal vehicular homicide, driving after cancelation, careless driving, and fourth-degree driving while impaired (DWI), defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by permitting the state to introduce a prejudicial photo of the victim and an impermissible opinion about defendant’s license status from an expert witness during trial. He contended that the cumulative effect of these two errors warranted a new trial. Defendant also argued that he was improperly convicted of and sentenced for two lesser-included offenses and that his gross misdemeanor sentence must be corrected. The Court of Appeals concluded that, even assuming the District Court abused its discretion in its admission of such evidence, defendant failed to show that he was deprived of a fair trial. But resentencing was required. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A24-1952 State v. Derby (Pipestone County)

Evidence

Plain Error

Defendant challenged his conviction of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, arguing that (1) the District Court committed plain error by admitting inadmissible character and other-act evidence, (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by using inflammatory language and misstating the law, and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors denied him a fair trial. Noting that the inadmissible statements appeared on just two transcript pages and that the state did not rely on the statements during its opening statement, closing argument, or redirect examinations, the Court of Appeals concluded that an error in admitting the challenged statements did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Affirmed.

A24-1675 State v. Ambuehl (Becker County)

Evidence

Prior Sexual Conduct

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct against two minor children, defendant argued that the District Court erred by not allowing him to admit evidence of the minors’ previous sexual conduct. Defendant contended that the exclusion of the evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to offer evidence in his own defense, entitling him to a new trial. Noting that there was no expert testimony placing the children’s lack of sexual knowledge at issue, the Court of Appeals discerned no abuse of the discretion in the District Court’s determination that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice. Affirmed.

A24-0710 State v. Frye (Ramsey County)

Evidence

Relationship Evidence

This appeal was from an order denying postconviction relief from a conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Petitioner argued that (1) the District Court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence as relationship evidence, (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during questioning of a witness, and (3) the cumulative effect of the errors deprived him of a fair trial. Noting that the District Court reduced the risk of unfair prejudice by limiting the scope of relationship evidence that it admitted at trial and issuing a cautionary instructions on the proper use of relationship evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.

A24-1978 Wharton v. State (Kandiyohi County)

Juveniles

Restitution

In this appeal from an order modifying a disposition, appellant argued that (1) the District Court’s award of restitution for physical-therapy sessions lacked adequate support in the record; (2) the District Court erred by using the monthly payment plan for the victim’s soccer activities as the appropriate measure of the victim’s services lost; and (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to oppose a second 180-day period of supervision. Noting that the restitution report included the $280 cost for the additional rehabilitation, and that the District Court did not apply an improper measure of the services lost, the Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A24-2011 In re Welfare of S.A.A. (Hennepin County)

Motor Vehicle Theft

Consent

Defendant challenged his conviction of theft of a motor vehicle by asserting that the state presented insufficient evidence that he knew or had reason to know that he did not have consent to use the vehicle. Noting defendant’s own admission in a recorded interview that he did not have a conversation with the victims about whether he could use the car, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circumstances proved were consistent with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with a rational hypothesis other than guilt. Affirmed.

A24-1627 State v. Aung (Ramsey County)

Plea Agreements

Breach

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of a two-count complaint pursuant to a plea agreement in which the state agreed to dismiss the other count. After he was sentenced to prison, defendant petitioned for postconviction relief, seeking an order that would require the state to file an amended complaint that did not include the dismissed count and did not include the factual allegations on which the dismissed count was based. The postconviction court denied the petition on the ground that there was no legal authority for the relief petitioner sought. Noting that petitioner based his argument on promises made by his own attorney, not by the state, the Court of Appeals found no error by the postconviction court. Affirmed.

A24-0881 State v. Smith (Hennepin County)

Plea Withdrawal

Adequate Factual Basis

Defendant argued that he must be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea to unintentional third-degree murder because he entered an inaccurate plea. Noting that defendant’s admissions established that he indirectly sold or otherwise distributed Percocet to the victim, the Court of Appeals concluded that the factual basis established defendant’s principal liability for third-degree unintentional murder. Affirmed.

A24-1871 State v. Isack (Dakota County)

Plea Withdrawal

Adequate Factual Basis

In this appeal from his conviction for failure to register as a predatory offender, defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to correct a manifest injustice, arguing that the factual basis of his plea was inaccurate and negated an essential element of the offense. Noting that defendant testified clearly that he knew of the weekly in-person reporting requirements, and he acknowledged that he had not completed these requirements for some time, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s plea colloquy adequately established his guilt. Affirmed.

A24-1628 State v. Smith (Beltrami County)

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Plain Error

On appeal from his conviction of third-degree possession of a controlled substance in a prohibited zone, defendant argued that (1) the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct that entitled him to a new trial, (2) the District Court abused its discretion by admitting Spreigl evidence of his prior drug-related offenses, and (3) the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward durational departure. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant failed to meet his burden to show that the prosecutor’s conduct related to a cautionary jury instruction constituted plain error, the prosecutor’s paraphrase of the legislature’s intent in passing the law did not constitute misconduct, and any alleged plain error committed by the prosecutor in eliciting inadmissible evidence did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Affirmed.

A24-1395 State v. Grace (Polk County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

The state challenged the District Court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion for a downward durational departure after a jury found him guilty of second-degree unintentional felony murder. Noting that the District Court provided legally supported reasons for the departure, carefully examined all the information presented, and conducted an independent inquiry into typical second-degree unintentional felony-murder offenses before reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that, regardless of whether it would have reached the same decision, it could not conclude the District Court abused its broad discretion. Affirmed.

A24-1747 State v. Gutierrez (Olmsted County)

Sentencing

Upward Departures

After he received an aggravated sentence for second-degree criminal sexual conduct, petitioner argued the postconviction court abused its discretion when it summarily denied his petition for postconviction relief. Specifically, petitioner contended that his sentence was unlawful and that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Court of Appeals concluded that, although the District Court legally erred when it relied on the victim’s age as an aggravating factor, the sentence was nevertheless lawful because the victim’s vulnerability due to sleep justified the upward durational departure. Affirmed.

A24-1771 Konakowitz v. State (Brown County)

Criminal Order Opinions

Postconviction Relief

Time Bar

Petitioner challenged the denial as untimely of his petition for postconviction relief from his 2020 conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Noting that petitioner did not attempt to rebut the untimeliness finding in his briefing, the Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A25-0447 Hoversten v. State (Anoka County)