This case involved a lawsuit by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and a commercial truck driver against Minnesota State Patrol officers, alleging that a 2008 fatigue-related inspection of the driver violated the Fourth Amendment through an unreasonable seizure and that the agency's enforcement program lacked adequate limits on officer discretion. The court incorporated its prior findings that the specific detention exceeded reasonable bounds without articulable suspicion of impairment and that the 2008 program failed to constrain officers properly. It declared that the inspection violated the driver's rights, that the prior program was constitutionally deficient, and that updated General Orders on impairment checks, out-of-service criteria, and inspections are adequate if followed with proper training, while enjoining future violations and unauthorized changes to the new protocols. The reasoning centered on Fourth Amendment requirements for reasonable suspicion before expanding inspections, limits on questioning scope, and probable cause for out-of-service orders.
Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), a Minnesota public charter school sponsored since 2003 by Islamic Relief USA, filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent disruption of its operations after a 2009 amendment to the Minnesota Charter School Law rendered out-of-state nonprofit corporations ineligible to serve as charter school authorizers beginning July 1, 2011. The amendment followed a legislative audit recommending stronger oversight standards and changed the term “sponsor” to “authorizer” while imposing new eligibility and approval requirements. TiZA argued that the law unconstitutionally impaired its existing contract and raised religious-liberty concerns tied to a separate Establishment Clause action. The court denied both motions, holding that TiZA had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, had delayed nearly two years before challenging the amendment, and could not demonstrate irreparable harm justifying emergency relief. The court also denied an injunction pending appeal.
religious libertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatory
This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit by Novo Nordisk against Paddock Laboratories concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,677,358 for a combination drug with repaglinide and metformin, filed after Paddock submitted an ANDA for a generic version. In a related case against another company, a Michigan district court had ruled the patent invalid due to obviousness and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and Novo Nordisk appealed that decision. Paddock moved for judgment on the pleadings based on collateral estoppel from the Michigan ruling, while Novo Nordisk sought to stay the proceedings pending the appeal. The court granted Paddock's motion in part, applying collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of the patent's validity and unenforceability because Novo Nordisk had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues, and denied the motion to stay.
The case involves Flirts, Inc. and its owners challenging a City of Harris ordinance regulating adult entertainment establishments such as the Heartbreaker’s nightclub, which features live nude and semi-nude dancing; the ordinance includes limits on hours, a high license fee, no-touch rules, direct tipping restrictions, and a total nudity ban. The court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment in full. It reasoned that fact issues remain on whether the City’s evidence adequately supports the ordinance as addressing adverse secondary effects of adult businesses, whether the license fee is justified by additional costs tied to the adult nature of the business, and whether the conduct restrictions are sufficiently related to those effects.
This case involved a trade association of truck drivers and one individual commercial driver suing officials from the Minnesota State Patrol over enforcement practices during roadside inspections of commercial vehicles under the federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The court addressed claims of constitutional violations arising from those inspections and related out-of-service orders. It decided to amend its prior order to dismiss all claims against supervisory defendants Colonel Mark Dunaski, Ken Urquhart, and Lieutenant Doug Thooft in their personal and official capacities. The core reasoning was that these defendants lacked any personal involvement in the specific May 2008 incident at issue, consistent with earlier summary judgment rulings, and that no departmental policy or custom was shown to connect them to the alleged violations.
The case involves the ACLU of Minnesota suing Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), a public charter school, along with its directors, sponsor Islamic Relief USA, and the state Commissioner of Education, alleging that TiZA used public tax funds to promote Islam in violation of the Establishment Clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment, including TiZA's challenges to the ACLU's capacity to sue due to a corporate filing lapse and cross-claims by Islamic Relief and the Commissioner seeking indemnification from TiZA under their contracts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding that the ACLU could proceed as an unincorporated association, dismissing claims for injunctive relief against individual defendants in their personal capacities, and upholding certain indemnification provisions while rejecting others based on contract language and factual circumstances. Core reasoning centered on Rule 56 standards for summary judgment, federal procedural rules on party capacity, and Minnesota contract law interpreting liability-shifting clauses without disparities in bargaining power.
.jpg?width=900)