Court of Appeals Digest: March 9, 2026

Listen to this article

Civil Precedential

Receivership

Priority

Appellant judgment holder challenged the District Court’s order approving the final distribution of receivership assets and discharging respondent receiver, arguing the District Court erred when it (1) denied appellant’s motion to amend the immunity provisions and bond requirement of the order appointing the receiver and (2) determined, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 576.51, subd. 1(1), that appellant’s judgments against the receiver, which resulted from an action initiated by the receiver, were not entitled to priority as an expense of the receivership over a secured claim. Respondent secured-claim holder filed motions to supplement the record and to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Court of Appeals held that a judgment in favor of a tenant renting receivership property and against a receiver that results from a receiver-initiated action against the tenant to preserve the receivership property is part of the “expenses of preserving, protecting, or disposing of” the receivership property under § 576.51, subd. 1(1). Reversed and remanded; appeal dismissed in part.

A25-1058 Wilmington Trust, Nat’l Assoc. v. 700 HENNEPIN HOLDINGS, LLC (Hennepin County)

Civil Nonprecedential

Anti-SLAPP

Matter of Public Concern

Respondent-child care center brought action for defamation and conspiracy against various appellants who made online comments about respondent, its owner, or its staff. Appellants challenged the District Court’s denial of their special motions for expedited relief seeking dismissal of respondent’s claims under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). Appellants argued that the District Court erred by (1) determining that UPEPA does not apply and (2) denying their motions for expedited relief. Because the content, form, and context here weighed in favor of concluding that the speech was on a matter of public concern, the Court of Appeals concluded that UPEPA applied to the claims against each of the appellants. Furthermore, the speakers were expressing their subjective views, and it would be apparent to readers, particularly within the social-media context the posts were written, that the views expressed by appellants were opinions, and thus the statements were not actionable for defamation. Reversed and remanded.

A25-0930, A25-1002, A25-1008 N A BROTHERS LLC v. Werts (Wright County)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Discharge

Pro se appellant, who is indeterminately committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), challenged the decision of the commitment appeal panel (CAP) to dismiss his petition for discharge. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant did not meet his burden to provide evidence to support his claim that he was able to control his sexual behaviors. Affirmed.

A25-1492 In re Civ. Commitment of Serna (Commitment Appeal Panel)

Corporations

Asset Purchase Agreements

In this dispute arising out of an asset purchase agreement involving a bakery, appellant-purchaser sued respondent-bakery, alleging: (1) breach of contract for failing to turn over Employee Retention Credit (ERC) funds and failing to disclose store credits; and (2) conversion for failing to give appellant the ERC funds. The District Court granted respondent’s summary judgment motion and awarded attorney fees. Noting that the plain language of the purchase agreement stated that respondent sought to sell certain tangible assets, and that the right to apply for ERC funds is not a tangible asset, and that the store credits were reviewable and knowable before the date of purchase, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Affirmed.

A25-0804, A25-1555 Maple Grove NBC, LLC v. Cake Gals Inc. (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Modification

Respondent-mother and appellant-father are the parents of a seven-year-old child. Upon the dissolution of their marriage, the District Court awarded them joint legal and joint physical custody of the child. Two years later, the District Court modified the judgment and decree by awarding mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the child. Noting evidence that the child stated multiple times that he was being physically abused by father, the Court of Appeals found no error with the District Court’s credibility determinations and conclude that the District Court did not err in its order granting mother’s motion for modification. Affirmed.

A25-0875 Douglass v. Olson (Clay County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Post-Judgment Motions

This appeal challenged the District Court’s denial of appellant’s postdissolution motions. Appellant argued that the District Court erred by denying her motions as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 518.145 based on the District Court’s conclusion that appellant filed the motions more than one year after the judgment and decree. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s motions to reopen the judgment and decree were untimely, but the District Court erred in denying appellant’s motion to enforce payments under the judgment and decree and her motion to hold respondent in contempt because neither motion was brought under § 518.145, subd. 2. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A25-0309 DeGolier v. DeGolier Baron (Anoka County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time; Modification

Appellant-father argued that, in modifying his parenting time to less and only supervised parenting time, the District Court abused its discretion by (a) failing to consider and give adequate weight to certain evidence; (b) failing to give proper weight to certain best-interest factors, especially the child’s preference; and (c) failing to recognize that certain evidence lacked credibility. He also argued that the District Court violated his due-process rights by requiring him to communicate with respondent/cross-appellant mother via the Our Family Wizard program and failed to afford him a fair hearing. By notice of related appeal, mother argued that the District Court abused its discretion by misapplying the law in granting father any parenting time. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by modifying father’s parenting time to supervised visits and weekly calls, and that father failed to show that his due process rights were violated or that he was denied a fair hearing. Affirmed.

A25-0628 Schwab v. Schenck (Clay County)

Drivers’ License Revocation

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

This was an appeal from a District Court’s order sustaining the revocation of appellant’s driving privileges and the impoundment of his license plates. Appellant argued that the District Court erred in declining to suppress the evidence underlying his driver’s license revocation and license-plate impoundment, which he claimed was the fruit of law enforcement’s unconstitutional trespass and violation of his reasonable expectation of privacy in his home. Noting that the undisputed facts established that the officer’s purpose in approaching appellant’s home was only to ask that appellant move his vehicle so that it would no longer block the driveway, the Court of Appeals concluded the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine did not bar the evidence. Affirmed.

A25-0926 Johnson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety (Olmsted County)

Environmental Law

Attorney Fees

On appeal from a judgment against them for attorney fees and costs under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), appellants, a lawn a garden service provider and its owner, argued that the District Court erred by (1) awarding respondent attorney fees in an amount that was disproportionate to the award of compensatory damages, (2) awarding attorney fees and expert costs incurred after state agencies become involved in the matter, and (3) failing to reduce the attorney-fee award to account for work performed on appellant’s non-MERLA claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that, even if there was arguably some “disproportion” between the damages award and the attorney-fee award, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees that exceeded the amount of compensatory damages. The Court also rejected appellants’ argument that the District Court abused its discretion by awarding respondent fees incurred after the state became involved because her MERLA claim did not provide a public benefit and found that the District Court acted within its discretion by declining to apportion attorney fees to exclude fees for non-MERLA claims. Affirmed.

A25-1103 Hogendorf v. Green (Anoka County)

Evidence

Expert Opinions

In this dispute between respondent, owners of building in downtown Minneapolis that they wished to convert to senior living, and appellant, a construction company hired to perform parts of the construction, appellant argued that the District Court erred by (1) admitting inadmissible hearsay and undisclosed expert testimony that was prejudicial to appellant; (2) failing to sanction respondent for spoliating evidence; (3) making clearly erroneous findings of fact; and (4) awarding damages to respondent that were not justified by the evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the project manager’s deposition testimony was admissible as lay opinion testimony and did not prejudice appellant, respondent laid proper foundation for the project manager’s testimony, and that the project manager’s handwritten notes were not inadmissible hearsay. Affirmed.

A25-0715 Snowman Constr. v. Ceresota Funding II LLC (Hennepin County)

Landlord & Tenant

Eviction Notice

This appeal arose from an eviction judgment in favor of respondent-landlord. Appellant-tenants argued that the District Court erred when it (1) concluded that respondent-landlord gave timely and proper notice before bringing the eviction action, (2) declined to hear a motion in which appellants raised a retaliation defense, and (3) found that June rent was unpaid. The Court of Appeals found no basis to conclude that subsequent ledgers informing tenants of their updated financial obligation legally supersedes an initial notice, and concluded that that the District Court did not err in its findings or conclusions. Affirmed.

A25-1402 Pedcor Mgmt. Corp v. Pate (Olmsted County)

Negligence

Jury Findings

In this dispute arising out of respondent-contractor’s agreement to perform masonry repair work on a building owned by appellant, commercial property owner, appellant challenged the jury’s special-verdict findings in a case involving negligence and breach-of-contract claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that the jury’s special-verdict answers that appellant was negligent and that respondent’s negligence was not the direct cause of any damages could be reconciled in a reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences. Affirmed.

A25-0242 Classic Auto Storage, LLC v. Restoration Techs., Inc. (Hennepin County)

Real Property

Partitioning

In this appeal from a District Court judgment partitioning a property with a home, appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by ordering a partition by sale rather than a partition in kind or another equitable method. Alternatively, she sought to reverse and remand the partition by sale on the basis that the District Court abused its discretion by allocating the proceeds of the sale between the parties inequitably. The Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the District Court for additional findings, noting that the District Court’s findings and analysis were not sufficiently clear on appellant’s trustworthiness, how her trustworthiness was relevant to its consideration of the prejudice to both parties, and whether the court considered the effect of a sale of the property on appellant’s interests. Remanded.

A25-1143 Nesbit v. Covel-Paulzine (Douglas County)

Unemployment Benefits

Employment Misconduct

Relator challenged a decision affirming his ineligibility for unemployment benefits. Relator advanced two arguments on appeal. He asserted first that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) failed to consider new evidence submitted at an evidentiary hearing. He argued second that the record lacked substantial evidence that his conduct violated any workplace policies and constituted employment misconduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that the ULJ’s decision reflected careful consideration of the relevant evidence and that relator engaged in employment misconduct by violating known and acknowledged employment policies by exploiting respondent’s coupon policy and falsifying customer transactions. Affirmed.

A25-1036 Kuller v. TVI, Inc. (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 employment without a good reason caused by his employer. Relator also asserted that he did not receive a fair hearing. Noting the findings that relator knew and understood the policy for recording his work hours, but clocked in while driving, and that the record did not support that relator was subjected to adverse working conditions, the Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A25-1012 Kern v. New Century Sys. Inc. (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)

Civil Order Opinions

Civil Commitment

Attorney Fees

On remand from the Supreme Court with a directive to reconsider the appeal in light of In re Civ. Commitment of Swope, 26 N.W.3d 275 (Minn. 2025), the Court of Appeals concluded that Swope required the county to pay the fees incurred during the extraordinary writ proceedings that sought to enforce appellant’s right to priority admission to a state-operated treatment program. Affirmed.

A24-0255 In re Civ. Commitment of Ly (Scott County)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Constitutionality

Appellant filed a Minnesota writ of habeas corpus, contending that his civil commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality was unconstitutional. The District Court denied appellant’s petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A25-1413 Rivera v. State (Carlton County)

Civil Commitment

SDP; Right to Self-Representation

Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his motion from relief from his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality, arguing that because he was denied an opportunity to represent himself in his civil-commitment proceedings, the commitment order was void and no longer equitable. Noting that appellant provided no evidence that he requested to represent himself at his civil-commitment proceedings, the Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A25-1608 In re Civ. Commitment of Nelson (Freeborn County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellants, father and mother, challenged the District Court’s decision to proceed by default on petitions to terminate their parental rights to their minor child, contending that the District Court’s decision deprived them of due process. The county agreed that the order should be reversed. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred by proceeding by default and prejudicially deprived appellants of their ability to present evidence. Reversed and remanded.

A25-1818, A25-1843 In re Welfare of Child(ren) of N.M.G. (St. Louis County)

Criminal Precedential

Damage to Property

Value

At issue in this appeal from final judgment was whether the District Court erroneously granted the state’s motion to aggregate defendant’s two criminal-damage-to-property charges under Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(4).

The Court of Appeals held that, under the first-degree criminal-damage-to-property statute, § 609.595, subd. 1(4), the value of any property damaged by the defendant within any six-month period may be aggregated if the alleged reduction in the value of the property for each offense is more than $1,000. Here, the state did not allege that the value of the property damaged in each offense was reduced by more than $1,000. Reversed and remanded.

A25-0516 State v. Lanham (Itasca County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Statute of Limitations

This was a pretrial prosecution appeal from a District Court’s order dismissing charges of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The state maintained that, because certain information communicated to child protection services (CPS) amounted to no more than vague concerns and comments, the District Court erred in determining that the communication to CPS was a report that triggered the applicable limitations period. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in determining that, taken together, the information communicated to CPS constituted a report to a law enforcement authority that triggered the applicable limitations period. Affirmed.

A25-1252 State v. Gibson (Becker County)

Evidence

Foundation

In this direct appeal, defendant challenged his judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant argued that he was entitled to reversal because the District Court abused its discretion in (1) denying his motion to strike alleged recovered-memory testimony from the victim; (2) denying his mistrial motion, which was based on a state witness’s testimony about defendant’s rights to counsel and to remain silent; and (3) refusing to admit testimony from a defense witness via video conference. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because the record did not show that daughter testified to any recovered memory, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to strike daughter’s testimony. Furthermore, defendant was not entitled to a mistrial, and the court was not required to admit the testimony via video conference. Affirmed.

A25-0621 State v. Larson (Wright County)

Evidence

Relevance

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for second-degree intentional murder and unlawful possession of a firearm, defendant argued the District Court abused its discretion by (1) denying his request to admit evidence on the victim’s phone showing the victim’s involvement with guns and gangs, (2) failing to remove a seated juror who expressed actual bias, and (3) limiting his ability to voir dire prospective jurors about self-defense. Noting that, even without the screenshots from the victim’s phone, the jury heard ample evidence tying the victim to the ghost gun found in the apartment where defendant was arrested, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the screenshots were not relevant and inadmissible. And the District Court did not otherwise abuse its discretion. Affirmed.

A25-0103 State v. Walker (Hennepin County)

Habeas Corpus

Lawful Confinement

Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his imprisonment for possession of child sexual-abuse material by a registered predatory offender. Each year, appellant refuses to even apply for sex-offender programming, resulting in his continued confinement. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s confinement was lawful, his continued incarceration was lawful, and there was no error in finding that appellant violated the conditions of his conditional release. Affirmed.

A25-1510 Whitner v. Beltz (Rice County)

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Deficient Performance

After defendant appealed his first-degree-burglary and third-degree-assault convictions, he moved to stay the appeal to pursue postconviction relief. The motion was granted, and defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree burglary. The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition. Defendant argued his attorney was ineffective in three ways: (1) failing to obtain text messages that would negate an essential element of the offense, (2) failing to adequately communicate, and (3) advising that defendant would be sentenced to probation rather than prison. Noting that the record reflected that defendant’s attorney explored the facts that defendant sought to prove with the text messages, that defendant did not adequately support his argument about his attorney’s communication, and that the argument about the attorney’s statements about the possible sentence was contrary to the record, the Court of Appeals agreed with the postconviction court that none of defendant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel satisfy the first Strickland prong. And the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for a dispositional departure in his sentence. Affirmed.

A24-0539 State v. Miller (Ramsey County)

Kidnapping

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged his kidnapping and deprivation-of-custodial-rights convictions after he violated a 72-hour hold and removed his biological child from a relative placement. Defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it did not offer a specific instruction on the meaning of the phrases “legal custodian” or “lawful custodian,” and that the state presented insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not need to further define the phrases because to do so would simply replace one common understandable term with another, and the evidence supported his convictions. Affirmed.

A25-0428 State v. Whitehead (Scott County)

Relationship Evidence

Unfair Prejudice

Defendant challenged his convictions of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the District Court erred in admitting relationship evidence at trial because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Noting that the District Court repeatedly cautioned the jury against misusing the evidence, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A25-0453 State v. Suess (Freeborn County)

Right to Public Trial

Courtroom Closure

In July 2023, a jury found defendant guilty of ten counts of criminal sexual conduct based on evidence that he sexually penetrated and touched his son numerous times while son was between six and eight years of age. During the trial, the District Court closed the courtroom during son’s testimony. Following his conviction, defendant appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by failing to make the required findings that courtroom closure was necessary during son’s testimony. In a nonprecedential opinion, this court reversed and remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing and findings. On remand, the District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued a written order. On appeal, defendant argued that the District Court erred by concluding (1) that defendant had waived any objection to the courtroom closure, and (2) that the courtroom closure was necessary. Noting that defendant, through counsel, waived his prior objection when he responded in the negative to the District Court’s inquiry as to whether he objected to courtroom closure, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in concluding that defendant waived any objection to the courtroom closure. Affirmed.

A25-1047 State v. Limogianni (Crow Wing County)

Search Warrants

Probable Cause

After waiving his right to a jury trial and stipulating to the state’s case to obtain review of the District Court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress, defendant was convicted of two counts of felony possession of pornographic work involving a minor. In this direct appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that law enforcement obtained after the search of his home and seizure of his electronic devices pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the search-warrant application did not establish particularized probable cause to search for child pornography images. Noting that defendant was originally investigated for criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, and had admitted to searching for photos of “young men” on the internet and storing images, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s arguments ignored the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the totality of the information presented in the search-warrant application. Affirmed.

A25-0764 State v. Blessing (Aitkin County)

Spreigl Evidence

Unfair Prejudice

In this direct appeal, defendant challenged his first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct and first-degree aggravated-robbery convictions. Defendant argued the District Court abused its discretion when it admitted prior-bad-acts evidence and disqualified a juror who discussed the case after being mistakenly excused as an alternate juror. Noting the District Court’s findings on each factor used in admitting Spreigl evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded the District Court appropriately exercised its discretion in its application of the balancing test. Affirmed.

A25-0546 State v. Crockett (Hennepin County)

Warrantless Searches

Protective Searches

In these consolidated pretrial appeals, the state challenged the District Court’s orders suppressing evidence and dismissing drug-possession charges against defendants. The state argued that the District Court erred by concluding that the police did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a protective search of defendants’ car for weapons after observing a large, unsheathed knife in plain view near the passenger’s feet during a traffic stop. Noting that the knife had already been secured when the officer reentered the car, the Court of Appeals concluded that the officer did not have a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that defendants were dangerous and could gain immediate control of a weapon. Affirmed.

A25-1353, A25-1524 State v. Korth (Nobles County)

Criminal Order Opinions

Illegal Firearm Possession

Review

After the state charged defendant with unlawful possession of a firearm after he was found hunting with a firearm on private property, defendant moved the District Court to dismiss the charge, arguing that he was no longer ineligible to possess a firearm because the legislature had “remov[ed] the illegality” of his 2009 marijuana-possession conviction when it amended Minnesota’s marijuana laws in 2023. Defendant filed an Alford plea. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because defendant pleaded guilty rather than proceeding by a stipulated-evidence trial, he did not preserve for appeal any arguments related to the District Court’s pretrial order in which it denied his motion to dismiss. Affirmed.

A25-1031 State v. Sween (Mower County)