Notable Opinions: Week of May 4, 2026

Habeas Petition

Petitioner appealed the U.S. district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition following his conviction for capital murder and imposition of the death penalty for participating in the beating and murder of a victim. On appeal, petitioner argued that the statutory requirement affording deference to state court decisions was unconstitutional and that the district court incorrectly rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The 8th Circuit held that Supreme Court precedent had not invalidated the deference requirement and found no error in the district court’s acceptance of the state court’s application of its res judicata doctrine. Additionally, petitioner failed to present evidence substantiating his ineffective assistance claims. Affirmed.

Piper v. South Dakota, 8th Circuit

Indemnification

An amusement park owner appealed a judgment requiring it to indemnify respondent, a ride’s builder, for defense and settlement costs from a personal‑injury action. Appellant argued the contract did not expressly cover such costs, that a Pierringer settlement barred recovery, and that common‑law indemnity principles applied. The Court of Appeals held that the indemnification clause, liberally construed, covered losses caused by appellant’s negligent ride operation, where respondent was found faultless. Affirmed.

Karre v. City of Duluth, Court of Appeals

Medical Malpractice

Appellant‑patient sued respondent‑hospital for medical malpractice, alleging nursing staff fractured her spine during postoperative care, causing paraplegia. The district court dismissed the action for failure to comply with Minn. Stat. § 145.682’s expert‑affidavit requirements. On appeal, appellant argued expert testimony was unnecessary under the common‑knowledge exception or, alternatively, that her affidavits were sufficient. The Court of Appeals held that expert testimony was required. It further held that appellant’s expert affidavits failed to establish a prima facie case, as they did not adequately explain the causal link between the alleged negligence and the injury. Affirmed.

Forbort v. St. Mary’s Med. Ctr., Court of Appeals

See all of the week’s Opinion Digests for the Minnesota Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the 8th Circuit here.