This case involved claims by a condominium association against a developer, a related LLC, and the principal manager for misrepresenting that new units would have hardwood floors when engineered wood flooring was installed instead. The district court ruled for the purchasers, finding violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract and statutory warranties, and grounds to pierce the corporate veil, while also addressing issues like corporate appearances without counsel, waiver of personal service, and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the evidence supported the fraud and breach findings despite an integration clause in the purchase agreements, that procedural rulings did not violate appellants' rights, and that the corporate entities were properly disregarded given the principal's transfers of assets and dissolution of the companies while aware of potential claims.
The case involved Dr. Steven Emerson, who worked as an activities director for three school years and then as an interim principal, challenging his termination by the school district without a hearing on the grounds that he had acquired continuing-contract rights as a teacher under Minnesota law. The court affirmed the school district's decision, holding that Emerson was not entitled to such protections. The core reasoning was that the continuing-contract statute defines a "teacher" as a professional employee required to hold a state license, and since the Minnesota Department of Education does not mandate licensure for activities directors, Emerson did not complete the required probationary years as a teacher.
The case involved a tenant's claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act that his landlords discriminated against him by refusing to renew his lease or accept his Section 8 housing vouchers due to his status as a public assistance recipient, quoting him a higher rent, and failing to accommodate his disability by continuing to participate in the program. The district court granted summary judgment to the landlords, and the appeals court affirmed. The court reasoned that the landlords' decision to phase out participation in the voluntary Section 8 program was a legitimate business choice not based on the tenant's protected status, that the tenant could not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory rent quoting because he could not pay without assistance, and that forcing continued acceptance of vouchers would fundamentally alter the landlords' policy and impose undue hardship rather than qualify as a required reasonable accommodation.
The case involved the convictions of Hussein Osman Ahmed for third-degree assault and second-degree criminal sexual conduct against his three-year-old stepson, who suffered pattern burns consistent with abuse. The district court admitted the child's out-of-court statement identifying the defendant through a witness under the residual hearsay exception and the jury found the defendant guilty and that the crimes were committed with particular cruelty. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement and that sufficient evidence supported the verdicts, but reversed the aggravated sentence and remanded for resentencing because the jury instruction on the particular cruelty aggravating factor was insufficient under recent precedent.
The case involved a dispute between QBE Insurance and a homeowners association over hail damage to townhome roofs, where the parties could not agree on the amount of loss and proceeded to an appraisal panel under the policy. The panel awarded replacement cost for total roof replacement on all 16 buildings, citing the unavailability of matching shingles, but the insurer challenged the award in a declaratory judgment action, arguing the panel exceeded its authority by making a coverage determination instead of valuing direct physical loss. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the association, concluding that the award constituted a permissible valuation of loss under the policy's guaranteed replacement cost provisions, which allowed consideration of comparable materials and actual replacement needs. It also upheld the denial of a continuance for additional discovery, as the core issue was one of contract interpretation not requiring further factual development.
This case concerned a tribal gaming enterprise's effort to enforce a tribal court money judgment against a former executive for reimbursement of legal fees related to licensing proceedings, which the enterprise sought to docket and collect in Minnesota state court under the UFCMJRA. The district court denied recognition and enforcement, concluding that the money judgment conflicted with a prior tribal court dismissal of related misconduct claims and that due process and public policy concerns also barred enforcement. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, determining that the UFCMJRA's conflicting-judgments provision does not apply to multiple judgments from the same jurisdiction and that the district court improperly conducted an independent review of the tribal court decisions on the merits.