Minnesota Lawyer

Contested judicial elections generally yield uninformed votes.

The issue has continued to be a hot topic of discussion, with much attention lately focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until recently, if you asked most lawyers, some judges, and certainly the Minnesota Supreme Court, which judges make law in Minnesota, the answer would have been simple. But the times, they are a-changing.

Normally, appellate courts decide the issues that are brought to them. But there is a notable exception when jurisdiction is involved.

For those of us who practice in both state and federal court, the access to state court records has been a source of frustration ranging between mild and extreme.

With Friday's State v. Chauvin ruling, there will be ripples in the fabric of appellate and trial law caused by the clear declaration that when the Court of Appeals designates its opinion to be precedent, it is immediately binding.

Because it’s an issue that impacts every submission to the district and appellate courts, we thought it important to call one more development to the attention of the practicing bar.

Whether you can and should appeal an interlocutory decision is a question that arises often when, during the course of litigation, the trial court issues an order which, although not finally disposing of the case, has a separate basis for immediate appeal.

Appearing in front of judges who are familiar, whom we have seen before, and about whom we generally have a sense is comforting. When you move to a new venue, it’s not quite as comfortable.

With the current furor over the replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, here's one view on how we do things here in Minnesota regarding judicial selection and retention.