EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Ronald Peterson, et al., Respondents vs. BASF Corporation, a foreign corporation, Appellant – Case No. C3-02-857: Respondents filed a class-action lawsuit against appellant alleging a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act based on appellant’s failure to offer one of its cheaper herbicides to respondents’ crop markets. A jury found appellant liable and awarded damages and the court of appeals affirmed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether appellant may challenge class certification at this stage in the proceeding; (2) if so, whether the district court erred in certifying the class; (3) whether respondents’ claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and (4) whether respondents met their burden of proving a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. (On appeal from Norman County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Eric (NMN) Smith, Respondent – Case No. C3-02-96: At respondent’s trial on charges of auto theft and receiving stolen property, the district court’s reasonable-doubt instruction to the jury was similar but not identical to the standard jury instruction on reasonable doubt contained in 10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice – Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal CRIMJIG 3.03. Respondent did not object to the instruction at trial. The court of appeals reversed respondent’s convictions on the grounds that the instruction was improper. The issue on appeal is whether the district court’s reasonable-doubt instruction created a plain error affecting respondent’s substantial rights entitling respondent to a new trial. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Roger Lindbo Schleicher, Appellant – Case No. C3-02-2043: Appellant was charged with first-degree murder. The district court found appellant sane at the time of the
offense and a jury found appellant guilty.
The issue on appeal is whether the standard for determining whether a
criminal defendant is sane contained in Minn. Stat. § 611.026 (2002) is
unconstitutionally vague and thus a violation of appellant’s right to due
process. (On appeal from Stearns County
District Court.)
In re Petition for
Disciplinary Action against Dale C. Nathan, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration
No. 77227 – Case No. C5-02-519: Attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what
discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
Jeffrey Kline,
Relator vs. Berg Drywall, Inc. and American Compensation Insurance Company/RTW,
Inc, Respondents – Case No. A03-420:
Relator was injured on the
job and received workers’ compensation benefits. After his employer questioned the nature, extent, and duration of
relator’s injury and disability, the matter was submitted to an alternative-dispute-resolution
process for workers’ compensation claims as provided by a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) and as authorized under Minn. Stat. § 176.1812 (2002). At the first stage of the process, at which
neither side was represented by counsel, the neutral ordered discontinuation of
workers’ compensation benefits. The
matter was ultimately submitted to an arbitrator under the terms of the
CBA. The arbitrator denied relator’s
claim. The Workers’ Compensation Court
of Appeals affirmed. The issues
presented on appeal are: (1) whether
the arbitrator failed to assure the impartiality and neutrality required by the
Workers’ Compensation Act in his resolution of relator’s claim; and (2) whether
the CBA’s denial of counsel at the first level of review unless both parties
agree violated relator’s right to counsel.
(On appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.)
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David J. Gherity, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 140181 – C5-87-1684: Attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
NONORAL: Keith Henderson, Appellant vs. State of
Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. CX-02-2184: Appellant petitioned
for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. The
district court denied the petition without a hearing. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying
the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. (On appeal from Hennepin County District
Court.)
NONORAL: Ronald Lewis Greer, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
– Case No. C6-03-216: Appellant petitioned for postconviction relief
from his conviction for first-degree murder, alleging that the district court
judge who presided over his case was biased.
The district court denied the petition without a hearing. The issue on appeal is whether the district
court erred in denying the petition without conducting an evidentiary
hearing. (On appeal from Hennepin
County District Court.)
Amy Marie Broehm, Appellant vs. Mayo Clinic Rochester,
Respondent – Case No. C0-02-959: Appellant sued respondent hospital after she
was left with a permanent scar on her forehead as a result of the restraints
used following throat surgery. The
district court dismissed the suit because the expert affidavit submitted by
appellant was insufficient. The court
of appeals affirmed. The issues on
appeal are: (1) whether an injury to a
healthy part of the body remote from the treatment area permits an inference of
medical malpractice under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor such that an
expert affidavit establishing a prima facie case is not necessary; (2) whether
the expert affidavit appellant offered presents a prima facie case of medical
malpractice; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying appellant’s request for additional time to submit an expert affidavit
and in refusing to considering an untimely second expert affidavit. (On appeal from Olmsted District Court.)
NONORAL: Darby John Opsahl, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent –
Case No. A03-298: Appellant petitioned for postconviction
relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, alleging newly discovered
evidence, juror misconduct, and prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied the petition
without an evidentiary hearing. The
issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying the petition
without conducting an evidentiary hearing on any of appellant’s claims. (On appeal from McLeod County District
Court.)
NONORAL: Lemoyne D. Jones,
Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A03-334:
Appellant petitioned for postconviction relief from his conviction for
first-degree murder, which the district court denied. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in
denying the petition on the grounds the claims were procedurally barred because
they were known or should have been known at the time of appellant’s direct
appeal. (On appeal from Sherburne
County District Court.)