EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Dean P. Vlahos, et al., Appellants
vs. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., f/k/a Robert Waade &
Associates, Inc., et al., Respondents vs. Quality Insulation, Inc., Respondent,
Intex Insulating Co., Inc., Third Party Defendant, Kleve Heating & Air
Conditioning, Inc., Respondent, Tappe Construction Co., Respondent, Donnelly
Brothers Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, Collins Electrical
Construction Co., Respondent, Weather Shield Mgf., Inc., Third Party Defendant
– Case No. C7-02-1428:
Appellants commenced suit against respondents alleging, inter alia,
breach of the ten-year statutory warranty against “major construction defects
due to noncompliance with building standards.”
Minn. Stat. § 327A.02, subd. 1(c) (2002). The trial court granted respondents summary judgment on the
grounds that appellants’ claims were barred by the two-year statute of
limitations based on the previous owners’ alleged knowledge of the alleged
defects. The court of appeals affirmed. The issue on appeal is whether appellants’
breach‑of‑warranty claim was timely where it was filed within the
ten-year warranty period and within two years of appellants’ discovery of the
defect. (On appeal from Hennepin County
District Court.)
William Lloyd Hutchinson, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. C3-02-1961: Appellant pled guilty to criminal damage to property under a plea agreement that provided for an executed sentence of 48 months, an upward durational departure. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that the departure was not supported by substantial and compelling circumstances and thus was invalid under State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2002). The district court denied the petition and the court of appeals affirmed. The issue on appeal is whether appellant’s case was “pending” at the time the decision in Misquadace was issued and thus is subject to the ruling in that case. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A., Respondent vs. Jerome Lipetsky, et al., Appellants, James Lipetsky, et al., Respondents – Case No. C1-02-1747: Respondent Bank Midwest commenced an action seeking an injunction barring appellant Jerome Lipetsky from canceling a contract for deed for the sale of farmland to James Lipetsky, which Jerome had sought to cancel after learning that James had mortgaged the property and assigned his interest in the contract for deed as security in violation of a consent-to-transfer clause. The district court granted Jerome summary judgment, concluding that the consent-to-transfer clause prohibited the mortgage and assignment. The court of appeals held that Jerome could terminate the contract for deed because the assignment violated the consent-to-transfer clause in the contract. However, the court of appeals also held that because the consent-to-transfer clause did not specifically prohibit granting mortgages, the mortgage was valid and enforceable. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether a contract for deed provision that the vendee cannot sell, transfer, or assign the property without the written permission of the vendor is ambiguous; and (2) whether a contract for deed provision that a vendee cannot sell, transfer, or assign the property without written permission of the vendor voids the vendee’s mortgage of the property where the vendor has not given written permission. (On appeal from Redwood County District Court.)
Sprint Spectrum LP, et al., Relators, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A03-954: Relators sought sales tax refunds for telecommunications equipment they purchased on the ground that the equipment is capital equipment exempt from taxation. The Tax Court ruled that the equipment was not tax exempt. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the equipment purchased is exempt from sales tax because relators use the equipment to manufacture tangible property; (2) assuming that relators provide a service rather than tangible personal property to customers, whether the service is tangible personal property under Minn. Stat. § 297A.01, subd. 3(i) (2002); and (3) whether the equipment at issue is exempt capital equipment because it is fabricated into a telephone system, the use of which relators license to their customers. (On appeal from the Minnesota Tax Court.)
State of Minnesota,
Plaintiff vs. Shawnatee Marie Tennin, Defendant – Case No. A03-1281: The
district court held that Minn. Stat. § 611.17, subd. 1(c) (Supp. 2003) is
unconstitutional because it requires a criminal defendant to pay a co-payment
for representation by a public defender without any exception for those defendants
who cannot afford the co-payment. This
court granted the state’s petition for accelerated review. The issue on appeal is whether Minn. Stat. §
611.17, subd. 1(c) is unconstitutional.
(On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
Kawaskii Blanche,
Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A03-826: On
appeal from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant presents the
following issues for review: (1)
whether the district court erred in denying his Batson challenge to the
state’s use of a peremptory strike to remove a Hispanic man from the jury; (2)
whether the district court erred in admitting statements made by a codefendant
who did not testify at the joint trial; (3) whether the district court erred in
granting the state’s motion for joinder of appellant’s and his co-defendant’s
trials; (4) whether appellant was denied a fair trial by the admission of
testimony regarding gang characteristics and activities; (5) whether the
prosecutor engaged in misconduct warranting a new trial; (6) whether the
district court erred in admitting a letter written by appellant’s codefendant;
(7) whether appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (8)
whether the district court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for conspiracy
to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder where there was only one
victim. (On appeal from Hennepin County
District Court.)
NONORAL: Brian Keith Hooper, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
– Case No. A03-849: On appeal from the denial of his petition
for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder,
appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred in denying appellant’s request
for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence or recantation of trial
testimony by a witness, (2) whether appellant was entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on his petition; (3) whether the district court was biased against
appellant; and (4) whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the
petition where there was a pending notice to remove the judge. (On appeal from Hennepin County District
Court.)
NONORAL: William Jeffery McDonough, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota,
Respondent – Case No. A03-876: On appeal from the denial of his petition
for postconviction relief from his conviction for first‑degree murder,
appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred in denying an evidentiary
hearing on the petition; and (2) whether appellant received ineffective
assistance of counsel. (On appeal from
Ramsey County District Court.)