Minnesota Lawyer

The Minnesota appellate courts were particularly consumed with the topic of vacations this summer. The subject was not setting aside time off from work, but rather attempts to set aside lower court rulings.

The crime conventionally known as rape has been denominated as criminal sexual assault in Minnesota statutes, similar to those in many other jurisdictions. The change in terminology may take some of the sting out of the evocative term, but it does not detract from the serious legal questions the incidents often raise.

Immunity issues often arise when public sector personnel and the entities they serve are sued for constitutional violations under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. The officials and the government agencies for which they work often assert that they cannot be sued because their actions did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. If so, they are protected from claims because of immunity.

In recognition of these difficulties, some laws give them special treatment. For instance, assaulting a police officer can yield a more substantial punishment than committing similar mischief to someone else. See Minn. Stat. sec. 609.221, subd. 2. On the other hand, when they commit criminal misdeeds, police officers often are subject to harsher punishment because of their derelictions.

One of the more intriguing cases now in the Minnesota appellate court system is the challenge to the Minnesota prohibition on same-sex marriages. The challengers, who lost in Hennepin County District Court, have taken their battle to the Court of Appeals to overturn the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a measure enacted in 1997 prohibiting marriages between people of the same gender. Benson v. Alverson, A-110811 (May 3, 2011).

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued dual decisions in concurrent cases dealing with verbal duos. In both cases, the Court reversed rulings against those engaged in the diatribes.

The U.S. Supreme Court passed upon a wide swath of cases during its recently concluded 2010-11 term. They range from “A” for arbitration to “Z” for zealous representation.

The term “unjust enrichment” is an evocative one, heavily imbued with legal and moral equitable considerations.

Employees who are terminated because they are absent from work without calling in usually lose their claim for unemployment compensation benefits.

Now that it’s summer, there is less activity in academic environments until students, teachers and staff members return in a few months.