EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
State of Minnesota, through its Department of Natural Resources, Appellant vs. Duwayne Hess, et al., Respondent – Case No. C4‑02‑2049: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) acquired a railroad corridor for use as a recreational trail from a railroad. After respondents, abutting landowners, claimed ownership of the property and blocked access, the DNR filed an action to quiet title. The district court granted the DNR summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that an 1898 deed conveying the railroad corridor from respondents’ predecessors in interest to the railroad conveyed an easement that had been extinguished due to abandonment prior to the DNR’s acquisition of the corridor. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the 1898 deed conveyed an easement or fee simple determinable title; and (2) if an easement was conveyed, whether the easement was extinguished due to abandonment prior to the transfer of the easement to the DNR. (On appeal from Hubbard County District Court.)
Judd Turner, et al., Appellants vs. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent – Case No. C9‑02‑2029: Individual appellants were injured in an automobile accident while using a rental car on a business trip for appellant Judd Turner’s employer. Appellants settled for the full liability limits under the tortfeasor’s policy and then sought uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under a commercial automobile policy issued by respondent to Turner’s employer. The district court held that the policy issued by respondent provided primary UM/UIM benefits and granted appellants’ motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed. The issue on appeal is whether Minn. Stat. § 60A.08, subd. 12 (2002), requires that a commercial automobile insurance policy provide UM/UIM coverage for rental vehicles. (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)
George M. Roehrdanz, Appellant vs. Toby Brill,
Respondent – Case No. CX‑03‑137:
Appellant unsuccessfully sued respondent in conciliation court. Appellant served respondent with a demand
for removal to district court under Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 521(b)(1) by mail but
sent the demand to an incorrect address.
Appellant did not include an acknowledgment of service, which is
required for service of a summons and complaint by mail under Minn. R. 4.05,
with his demand for removal. Appellant
obtained a default judgment against respondent after he failed to respond. The district court denied respondent’s
motion to vacate. The court of appeals
reversed. The issue on appeal is
whether a party seeking to remove a conciliation court action to district court
must comply with the service requirements in Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.05 for
commencement of a civil action. (On
appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Christine
LaFontaine, Appellant – Case No. C8‑03‑184: Appellant pled guilty to one count of criminal vehicular homicide
and two counts of child endangerment under a plea agreement in which the state
agreed to a presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines. At the sentencing hearing, the district court
sentenced appellant to 96 months for criminal vehicular homicide, a double
durational departure. The court of
appeals affirmed appellant’s sentence.
The issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion
in imposing a double durational departure in sentencing for criminal vehicular
homicide. (On appeal from Clearwater
County District Court.)
Gary Rosenberg d/b/a Shelter Consultants, Appellant vs. Heritage Renovations, LLC, et al., Respondents – Case No. C7‑03‑94: After respondent terminated appellant’s employment as the real estate agent for respondent’s condominium development, appellant sued respondent for breach of contract, claiming entitlement to commissions on future sales of units in the development. The district court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denied appellant’s motion to amend. The court of appeals affirmed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in concluding that appellant is not entitled to commissions on sales that closed after he was terminated; (2) whether the district court erred in holding that, as a matter of law, appellant’s employment was terminable at will; (3) whether the district court erred in denying appellant’s motion to amend; (4) whether the district court erred in dismissing one of the defendants from the suit because it was not a party to the listing agreement. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
Star Tribune Company, Respondent, The Minnesota Daily, et al., Respondents, Northwest Publications, Inc., Respondent vs. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, et al. – Case Nos. A03‑124, A03‑155: Respondents sued the University of Minnesota Board of Regents (Board) alleging that the Board’s process for selecting a president for the University of Minnesota violated the Open Meeting Law and the Government Data Practices Act. The district court denied the Board’s motion to dismiss, granted respondents’ motion for partial summary judgment, and ordered the Board to reveal the names of candidates interviewed but not selected for the position of president. The court of appeals granted the Board’s motion for discretionary review and affirmed the district court. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in holding that the state constitution does not authorize the Board to design its own internal process for selection of a president; (2) whether the district court erred in holding that the Open Meeting Law and Government Data Practices Act apply to data and meetings of the Board; and (3) whether the district court erred in ordering the Board to disclose information on candidates for the position of president. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
IHLC
of Eagan, LLC, d/b/a The Commons on Marice, Respondent vs. County of Dakota,
Relator – Case No. A03‑1407: Respondent challenged appellant’s denial of its application for a
property tax exemption for a senior living community facility. The tax court held that respondent was
entitled to the exemption. The issues
on appeal are: (1) whether the statute
granting a property tax exemption for entities housing elderly persons, Minn.
Stat. § 272.02, subd. 26 (2002), requires that such elderly persons be low
income; (2) whether Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 26 requires that a qualifying
facility have been in existence prior to 1991 to qualify for the exemption; and
(3) whether the tax court erred in its determination that respondent qualified
for a property-tax exemption under Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 26. (On appeal from the Tax Court.)
NONORAL: David Wayne Washington, Appellant vs. State
of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A03‑1633: The district court denied appellant’s
petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree
murder. Appellant presents the
following issue for review: whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s petition in which appellant
challenged the admission of certain testimony and appellant’s statements at
trial, and the failure to give the jury a cautionary instruction on accomplice
testimony. (On appeal from Dakota
County District Court.)
NONORAL: In the Matter of the Children of R.W. – Case No. A03‑262: The
district court terminated appellant’s parental rights based on finding that
statutory grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the
children’s best interests. The court of
appeals concluded that no statutory grounds for termination existed but
nonetheless affirmed termination because termination was in the children’s best
interests in light of appellant’s incarceration. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the court of appeals erred
in affirming termination based on the best interests of the children after
concluding that no statutory grounds for termination exist; (2) whether the
court of appeals erred in holding that no statutory grounds for termination
exist; and (3) whether termination is in the best interests of the
children. (On appeal from Sherburne
County District Court.)