Court of Appeals Digest: April 20, 2026

Listen to this article

Civil Precedential

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Indian Children

Appellant/respondent challenged the District Court’s order terminating her parental rights to all five of her children, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it ruled that (1) the county made active efforts to reunify the family; (2) a termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children; and (3) mother neglected her parental duties pursuant. Respondent/appellant father challenged the District Court’s order terminating his parental rights to all three of his children.

The Court of Appeals held that, if a child who is subject to a petition to terminate parental rights is an “Indian Child” as defined under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 2.01(14) and Minn. Stat. § 260.755, subd. 8, then Minn. R. Juv. Pro. P. 58.04(c)(3) requires that the best interests of that child “be determined consistent” with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). If the District Court determines that the best-interests requirements under ICWA are met, then the District Court need not perform an analysis of the best-interests factors that apply to non-Indian children under Minn. R. Juv. Pro. P. 58.04(c)(2)(ii). Affirmed.

A25-1606, A25-1656 In re Welfare of Children of L.P. (Clay County)

Civil Nonprecedential

Appeals

Record

In this appeal after a bench trial, pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of his assault and battery claims against respondent-bar. Appellant argued that the District Court erred by (1) excluding “proof of [his] medical records” at trial and (2) dismissing his claims because he failed to prove who “harassed and tortured” him. Because it lacked a trial transcript and appellant failed to preserve any evidentiary error, the Court of Appeals concluded it could not address the medical-records issue. And the District Court’s factual findings supported its conclusion of law that appellant did not present sufficient evidence of his assault and battery claims. Affirmed.

A25-1466 Adjignon v. Oro Lounge Bar (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Relocation

Pro se appellant father challenged the District Court’s order granting respondent mother’s motion to relocate out of the state with their children. Noting that the court gave father an opportunity to call witnesses, the Court of Appeals concluded that father failed to demonstrate any legal basis to support reversal of the District Court’s order granting mother’s motion to relocate the children. Affirmed.

A25-0815 Avery v. Avery (Jackson County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant mother challenged the District Court’s determination that respondent county made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate her and reunite her with the child, that termination was supported by three separate statutory grounds, and that termination was in the best interests of the child. Noting that the record included ample testimony to support the District Court’s determination regarding the reasonableness of the county’s efforts, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s determination that the county made reasonable efforts was supported by the record and there were no abuses of discretion. Affirmed.

A25-1396 In re Welfare of Child(ren) of C.B.B. (Lyon County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-mother challenged a District Court order terminating her parental rights to her child. Mother asserted that the District Court abused its discretion: (1) in ruling that appellant failed to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement; (2) by determining that termination was in the best interests of the child; and (3) by ruling that the county made reasonable efforts towards reunification. Noting the finding that mother had not followed the recommendations of her chemical-dependency assessment, diagnostic assessment or engaged in random urinary analysis testing, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court acted within its discretion in ruling that mother failed to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement. And the court did not abuse its discretion on the other issues. Affirmed.

A25-1903 In re Welfare of Child(ren) of K.A.S. (Stearns County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Counsel

In this marital-dissolution matter, appellant-wife argued that the District Court abused its discretion by disqualifying her counsel. The Court of Appeals concluded that, although attorney had filed an HRO against respondent, there was no conflict of interest that justified disqualification. Reversed.

A25-1501 Forschen King v. King (Washington County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Marital Property

Appellant-husband challenged the judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, arguing that the District Court (1) clearly erred in determining the value of certain real property, (2) erred by rejecting his claim to a nonmarital portion of marital real property, (3) abused its discretion by denying his request for reimbursement of certain expenses he incurred during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding, and (4) abused its discretion by denying his request for conduct-based attorney fees. By notice of related appeal, respondent-wife argued that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) denying her request for spousal maintenance, (2) retroactively reducing husband’s temporary child-support obligation, (3) not awarding her half of husband’s 2022 bonus, (4) denying her request to require husband to secure his child-support obligation with life insurance, (5) not awarding her a marital lien to secure the property-equalizer payment owed to her, and (6) denying her request for need- and conduct-based attorney fees. The Court of Appeals found no error warranting reversal. Affirmed.

A25-1007 Jakubauskiene v. Jakubauskas (Hennepin County)

Environmental Law

Review

In this appeal by writ of certiorari, relator challenged a determination by respondent state agency that relator was ineligible for a particular type of air emissions permit for its facility; the agency also requested that relator apply for a different type of air emissions permit. Relator sought review of two agency decisions: the denial of relator’s request to reconsider the ineligibility decision and the agency’s “withdrawal” of relator’s new application for its preferred permit. The Court of Appeals concluded that the agency’s denial of relator’s request to reconsider was not a final agency decision, and the agency’s withdrawal of relator’s permit application was supported by substantial evidence and not legally erroneous and any claimed legal error was not prejudicial to relator. Affirmed in part and appeal dismissed in part.

A25-1249 Alter Trading Corp. v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency (Minn. Pollution Control Agency)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Harassment

The District Court issued a harassment restraining order (HRO) that prohibited appellant from harassing or contacting respondent for two years. Appellant argued that the District Court erred on the ground that the conduct underlying the finding of harassment was motivated by a proper purpose and was not objectively unreasonable. Noting that the statutory definition of harassment does not make any exceptions for acts, words, or gestures that communicate a person’s legal rights and demands, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant’s written communications were not exempt from the statutory definition of harassment on the ground that they were legal in nature. Affirmed.

A25-1309 Xiong v. Davis (Washington County)

Human Services Licensing

Foster Care License

In this certiorari appeal from an order revoking an adult foster care license and a home and community-based services license, relator argued that respondent agency erred because it applied an incorrect definition of “primary caregiver,” and that the decision to impose revocation as the sanction for relator’s alleged licensing violation was arbitrary and capricious, among other arguments. The Court of Appeals agreed with the commissioner’s interpretation of the “primary caregiver” requirement in Minn. Stat. § 245A.02, subd. 6f(3), as unambiguously requiring that the license holder must personally provide a majority of the care. And here, relator acknowledged that he did not personally provide the requisite level of care for the residents. Affirmed.

A25-1054 In re Appeal by Caga (Dep’t of Hum. Servs.)

Leases

Assignments

This appeal stemmed from a grant of summary judgment in a lease-assignment dispute involving commercial premises. Appellant-lessor maintained that the assignment from lessee to purported sublessee, respondent, was valid because the assignment agreement was dated within the cure period in which an assignment without written approval was permitted, and that, even if the assignment may not have been valid under the lease’s written terms, appellant waived the terms of the lease restricting assignments without landlord approval. The Court of Appeals concluded that there were unresolved issues of material fact as to both issues. Reversed and remanded.

A25-0986 Doran MGC I, LLC v. Vein Clinics of Am., Inc. (Hennepin County)

Leases

Damages

Appellant-lessee sought review of an award of damages following the District Court’s entry of default judgment against the respondent-lessor. The District Court awarded appellant $38,359 for lost profits stemming from respondent’s breach of its lease agreement with appellant, plus attorney fees and costs totaling $28,162. Appellant argued on appeal that the District Court’s award was inadequate and the court abused its discretion because it discredited appellant’s evidence of lost profits and inaccurately calculated the award. Noting that it was within the district’s court’s discretion to determine that appellant did not prove with reasonable exactness or probability that the 2020 profits would have been earned again absent respondent’s breach and to decline to calculate damages based on that amount, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A25-1369 City Market & Halal Meat, Inc. v. M&S Props., LLC (Hennepin County)

Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

Standing

This matter involved an assertion that appellant Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), when it responded to a data request by disseminating, as alleged in respondents’ amended complaint, the names and dates of birth of officers assigned to work undercover. Appellant board challenged the District Court’s denial of its motion to dismiss based on respondent association’s lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant also challenged the District Court’s grant of respondents’ motion to certify a class action. The Court of Appeals concluded that respondent association, which represented over 90% of the peace officers in Minnesota, had standing to assert the claims against the board. As to the denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, appellant was correct that the District Court applied an incorrect legal standard but, nevertheless, could not conclude to a certainty that no facts could be introduced that would support granting the relief requested. And deficiencies in the District Court’s class-certification order, required reversal and remand to allow the District Court to make additional findings and issue a new decision on class certification. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A25-1101, A25-1102 Minn. Police & Peace Officers Assoc. v. Minn. Bd. of Peace Officer Standards & Training (Ramsey County)

Orders for Protection

Evidence

Pro se appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s denial of her petition for an order for protection (OFP) against respondent-father on behalf of the parties’ 12-year-old son, arguing that the District Court denied her son’s due process rights by not permitting him to testify at the OFP hearing or interviewing him privately. She also argued that she was entitled to reversal of the denial of the OFP and to a remand of the case before a different judge. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to show that child’s due process rights were violated by the District Court’s decision that child lacked sufficient ability, age, and maturity to either express a preference or to deal with one parent’s allegations of domestic abuse of himself against the other parent. Affirmed.

A25-1338 Wilson-Greenwood v. Wilson (Dakota County)

Postconviction Relief

Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner challenged the postconviction court’s decision to summarily deny his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for second-degree intentional murder. Noting that petitioner’s petition did not allege any facts regarding the prejudice prong of his ineffective assistance claim, the Court of Appeals concluded petitioner failed to meet his burden to allege facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief. Affirmed.

A25-1683 Wiseman v. State (Hennepin County)

Unemployment Benefits

Employment Misconduct

Relator challenged the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for the employment misconduct of violating city-employer requests to stop bullying people. Relator argued that (1) the ULJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence or (2) alternatively, the ULJ should have ordered an additional hearing. Noting that three witnesses testified for the city about instances in which relator was accused of using his physical stature to intimidate coworkers and third parties when he became angry, the Court of Appeals concluded that the ULJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not based on legal error. Affirmed.

A25-1401 Wosmek v. City of Fifty Lakes (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)

Zoning

Conditional Use Permits

Relators challenged respondent Crow Wing County Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment’s decision to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) to respondents to operate a home-based dock and boat-lift business on their four-acre property. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record demonstrated that the board evaluated the required criteria in its written findings when it approved the CUP application and supported its decision with a sufficient factual basis. Affirmed.

A25-0814 In re Application of Kitzman (Crow Wing County Planning Comm’n)

Zoning

Variances

Appellant Department of Natural Resources (DNR) challenged the District Court’s order granting respondent-county board of adjustment’s motion to dismiss, arguing that the District Court erred because the complaint was sufficient to appeal a decision granting a variance to expand the number of boat slips on a lake.  Noting that DNR stated the basis for appealing the variance decision was that the board failed to provide sufficient factual findings that meet variance legal requirements, and provided specific examples of why the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the Court of Appeals concluded the pleadings were sufficient to survive the granting of a rule 12 motion. Reversed and remanded.

A25-1590 Minn. Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. Murray County Bd. of Adjustment (Murray County)

Civil Order Opinions

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; QDROs

Pro se appellant husband challenged the District Court’s decision to file the signed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), raising four arguments. The Court of Appeals found no error, noting that some of appellant’s arguments had been raised in prior appeals. Affirmed.

A25-0827 Nelson v. Nelson (Ramsey County)

Human Services

Claims

Appellant sued respondent, an employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Respondent moved to dismiss Osman’s complaint for failure to state an actionable claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). The District Court granted respondent’s motion. Appellant appealed. Noting that appellant’s handwritten complaint did not include any actionable factual allegations and failed to meet the requirements under Rule 8.01, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A25-1317 Osman v. Hanson (Olmsted County)

Probate

Remains

Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of her motion for temporary injunctive relief, which sought to prevent the respondent personal representative for appellant’s deceased sister’s estate from taking any further action regarding the estate or remains of decedent. Noting that But the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 149A.80 does not require unanimous consent among equal-priority next-of-kin for cremation—it requires a majority decision, the Court of Appeals concluded the District Court did not err in determining that the personal representative obtained valid consent before authorizing the cremation. Affirmed.

A25-1403 In re Estate of Williams (Ramsey County)

Criminal Precedential

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Felonies

Defendant challenged his conviction of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence was legally insufficient to enhance the Minnesota offense to a felony.  The Court of Appeals held that, to determine whether an out-of-state offense is “in conformity with” a Minnesota offense such that the out-of-state offense may be used to enhance a gross misdemeanor offense to a felony under Minn. Stat. § 609.3451, subd. 3(b)(3), a District Court must determine whether the elements of the out-of-state offense would satisfy the elements of the Minnesota offense. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A25-0736 State v. Finfrock (Hennepin County)

Sentencing

Remand

Defendant argued that, after the Court of Appeals reversed a kidnapping conviction and instructed the District Court on remand to vacate the kidnapping conviction and sentence, the District Court exceeded the scope of those limited remand instructions by resentencing on a criminal-sexual-conduct conviction. The Court of Appeals concluded that when it reverses a conviction and remands with instructions to vacate that conviction and its sentence, the District Court does not have authority to resentence on any other convictions absent express authority to do so. Reversed and remanded.

A25-1408 State v. Jonas (Anoka County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged his conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction because the victim’s testimony was unreliable and not corroborated. The Court of Appeals concluded that the victim’s testimony was sufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant engaged in sexual contact with her. Affirmed.

A25-0835 State v. Everson (Hennepin County)

Plea Withdrawal

Voluntary & Intelligent

In this appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of a machine gun conversion kit, defendant argued that he must be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. He also argued that the state’s amendment of the complaint prior to his guilty plea amounted to vindictive prosecution. Noting that the record demonstrated that defendant consulted with his attorney, had an opportunity to ask questions, and understood the rights he was waiving and the consequences of his plea—both when he initially entered his plea and when he re-entered his plea for a second time at the sentencing hearing, the Court of Appeals held that the record showed that defendant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and a guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects that arose before the plea. Affirmed.

A25-0724 State v. Kpaan (Hennepin County)

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Plain Error

A jury found defendant guilty of four charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant argued that the prosecutor improperly offered evidence that defendant had caused the child-victim’s mother to use drugs and to relapse and improperly aligned himself with jurors during his closing argument. The Court of Appeals concluded that the prosecutor plainly engaged in misconduct by offering the videorecording of the victim’s forensic interview without redacting her statement that defendant had caused her mother to use drugs and to relapse, but that this did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. And prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by using the word “we” during closing argument. Affirmed.

A25-0818 State v. Boit (Becker County)

Relationship Evidence

Domestic Conduct

In this direct appeal from his conviction for felony domestic assault-fear, defendant argued he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court abused its discretion when it allowed the state to present certain relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20.  The Court of Appeals concluded that when the legislature replaced the word “similar” with the word “domestic” in 2013, the legislature did not alter the definition of similar/domestic conduct. Affirmed.

A25-0832 State v. Amigon (Stearns County)

Right to Confrontation

Plain Error

This was a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction for driving while impaired (DWI). Defendant argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of witness testimony about a preliminary lab test result without testimony from the analyst who performed the test. The Court of Appeals concluded that, even if the admission of the testimony about the preliminary screening test was in error, it did not have a significant effect on the jury’s verdict and thus did not constitute reversible plain error. Affirmed.

A25-0910 State v. Ramirez (Washington County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

The state challenged the District Court’s grant of a downward durational departure for defendant’s fleeing sentence, arguing that the District Court relied on improper grounds to support the departure and that no other evidence existed in the record to support the departure. Because the question of intent goes to whether defendant’s course of conduct fit squarely within the statute’s prohibition, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court relied on proper and adequate reasons and acted within its discretion by downward durationally departing. Affirmed.

A25-1265 State v. Wentz (Nicollet County)

Threats

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his threats-of-violence conviction. Noting that, after being informed by another commenter that defendant’s social media message about the sheriff sounded like a threat, defendant thanked the commenter and stated he intended to send the same information in an email, without the perceived threatening language, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circumstances proved were consistent with a rational hypothesis of not guilty because defendant did not act in conscious disregard that his words would cause extreme fear. Reversed.

A25-0737 State v. Whalen (Yellow Medicine County)

Criminal Order Opinions

Parking Violations

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant appealed an order entered after a court trial finding him guilty of a parking violation and entering a fine of $35. Noting that it was reasonable to assume that the District Court found the testimony of the officer who issued the citation to be more credible than defendant’s testimony, the Court of Appeals found no error. Affirmed.

A25-1717 State v. Blackwell (Ramsey County)