Randoplh W. Peterson

The case involved adult plaintiffs who alleged they were sexually abused as children by a priest in the Diocese of New Ulm between 1965 and 1975, and who brought an intentional-misrepresentation claim against the Diocese and parishes, asserting that the defendants failed to disclose prior reports of the priest's misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed that ruling. The appellate court first held that the claim was not barred by the fraud statute of limitations because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding when the plaintiffs were on notice of potential fraud and whether they exercised reasonable diligence. On the merits, however, the court affirmed summary judgment because the claim rested solely on nondisclosure, and the plaintiffs had not established that the defendants had any legal or equitable duty to disclose the information. Without such a duty, the plaintiffs could not prove the essential element of a misrepresentation.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, where the state sought contractual contribution and indemnity plus statutory reimbursement from Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., the successor to the 1962 bridge designer Sverdrup, after compensating survivors under special legislation. Jacobs moved to dismiss the state's cross-claims, arguing they were barred by the statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, unconstitutionally impaired the original contract, were precluded by Pierringer settlements with other parties, and involved only voluntary payments. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the claims were timely under the retroactive amendments to the statute, that the contract was not impaired because the state had long waived sovereign immunity in similar matters, that settlements did not bar the claims, and that the statutory reimbursement right applied regardless of whether payments were deemed voluntary.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge, in which plaintiffs sued contractors URS and PCI for negligence after the structure failed during repairs; URS then filed third-party claims against Jacobs Engineering, the successor to the original bridge designer Sverdrup, seeking contribution and indemnity based on alleged design negligence. The district court denied Jacobs' motion to dismiss the third-party claims, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered dismissal. The court reasoned that Minnesota's statute of repose barred any liability by Jacobs to the plaintiffs at the time of collapse, eliminating the common liability required for a contribution claim. It further held that URS had not pleaded facts showing any relationship that would make it vicariously liable for Jacobs' conduct, which is necessary for an indemnity claim.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct after a bench trial in which the defense attorney failed to submit an agreed-upon written summation for final argument. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, determining that the attorney's omission amounted to ineffective assistance constituting structural error. This was because the failure occurred without the client's knowledge or consent, deprived the defendant of advocacy at a critical trial stage, and lacked any plausible strategic basis, thereby undermining the reliability of the trial process.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a common-law indemnity claim brought by Master Blaster, Inc., a South Dakota corporation, against Pipestone Plumbing & Heating, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, after a fire at a hog facility caused by allegedly defective flue-vent installation. Supreme Pork had sued Master Blaster in South Dakota for negligence and breach of implied warranty; Pipestone was dismissed from that suit for lack of personal jurisdiction but refused Master Blaster’s repeated tenders of defense. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Master Blaster, holding that proper vouching bound Pipestone to the South Dakota verdict because the tendered claims fell within Pipestone’s indemnity duty, no conflict of interest existed, Master Blaster adequately represented Pipestone’s interests, and due process was satisfied by notice and opportunity to participate. The court also upheld liability under Minnesota’s implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, finding that the attic shields Pipestone fabricated and supplied qualified as goods.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Ann Staab's personal injury claim against Holy Cross Parish School after she fell from a wheelchair being pushed by her husband on school premises; the jury found the school and her husband each 50% at fault and awarded damages, but the district court required the school to pay 100% because the husband was not a party to the suit. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1 limits joint and several liability to tortfeasors whose fault exceeds 50%, so the school was responsible only for its 50% share. The court reasoned that the statute's reference to "persons" includes any tortfeasor whose fault was submitted to the jury, regardless of party status, and the plain language creates several liability as the default with narrow exceptions for greater fault or other specified circumstances. The decision applied to events after the 2003 statutory amendment that shifted toward several liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Harlin, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon and false imprisonment for physically attacking his girlfriend, including striking her repeatedly with a hammer and mallet over 45 minutes and suspending her by an electrical cord, which caused her substantial bodily harm. The defendant appealed, arguing that the assault statute requires the dangerous weapon itself to inflict the substantial bodily harm, that evidence of such harm was insufficient, that the district court erred by not answering a jury question, and that the court should have defined intent for the jury. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the statute only requires substantial bodily harm to occur during an assault involving a dangerous weapon rather than being directly caused by it, that the evidence supported the jury's finding of substantial bodily harm, and that any instructional issues did not constitute reversible error or affect the defendant's substantial rights.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Booker, a Hennepin County jury convicted Terrell D. Booker of first-degree aggravated robbery after he and an accomplice robbed a taxicab driver at gunpoint. Booker appealed, claiming he was improperly excluded from a hearing determining whether his accomplice could invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege against testifying and that the district court should have suppressed the victim's pretrial photo-array identification of him. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01 did not require Booker's presence at the privilege hearing and that the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive because the images were reasonably similar in appearance and presented under standard procedures. The court therefore found no error in the district court's rulings on either issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, N.G.K. petitioned the district court eleven years after his 1997 gross-misdemeanor theft conviction to expunge all government records of the offense, citing difficulties with employment and housing. The district court granted the petition in part by ordering expungement of judicial-branch records and limiting disclosure of certain executive-branch records. The City of Crystal appealed the order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the expungement of judicial records, finding that the district court properly exercised its inherent authority after weighing the statutory factors concerning the petitioner's hardships against the public interest. It reversed the portion concerning executive-branch records, holding that inherent authority does not extend to sealing records held by the executive branch under separation-of-powers principles.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Thomas Marinaro, owner of Tank’s Bar, who was cited for violating the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act after police observed customers smoking inside the bar. Marinaro claimed the smoking fell under the act’s exception for actors in theatrical performances, as he had advertised an event called “Gun SMOKE Monologues” and provided customers with “Actor” name tags. After a bench trial, the district court found Marinaro guilty of a petty misdemeanor. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the customers’ actions did not constitute a genuine theatrical performance under the statute because they lacked indicia of a real performance and appeared to be a sham designed to evade the smoking prohibition. The court reasoned that the state met its burden to disprove the exception and that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryenvironment

This case involved a motion to disqualify attorney Joseph Roby and his firm from representing the Girl Scouts in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Niemi under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Roby had represented Niemi more than 25 years earlier in a separate federal employment discrimination suit against the city of Duluth, during which he received some confidential information from her. The district court granted disqualification under Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a), concluding the matters were substantially related due to their shared nature as employment discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, determining that the two lawsuits were not substantially related because they concerned different employers, time periods, and specific factual allegations, so the rule did not require disqualification.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between John Witzke and his former employer, Mesabi Rehabilitation Services, over the validity and enforceability of noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions in an employment agreement, as well as whether Mesabi's client list constituted a trade secret. After the judicial officer granted summary judgment in Witzke's favor on these issues, Mesabi appealed on the ground that the judicial officer lacked authority to decide the case. The court reversed and remanded, ruling that the judicial officer did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. The core reasoning was that, under the Minnesota Constitution and State v. Harris, a judicial officer may not exercise jurisdiction equivalent to that of a district court judge by determining an entire action through summary judgment, which renders a final, appealable judgment.

procedurelabor & employment

In State v. Stone, the defendant appealed his conviction for aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery, arguing that the district court erred in admitting an audio recording of a witness's police interview as a recorded recollection under the rules of evidence, allowing impeachment with prior convictions, denying a continuance, admitting evidence about a motorcycle, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the continuance, that the motorcycle evidence claim was waived, and that the eyewitness testimony provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that the recording met the requirements for a recorded recollection because the witness had insufficient memory at trial but had accurately recounted events when fresh in his mind, and that credibility determinations were for the jury to make.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ptacek, the defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for performing oral sex on his fifteen-year-old nephew after an evening of drinking. The district court barred the defendant's expert from testifying about the effects of alcoholic blackouts or whether the defendant was in one, and it instructed the jury that fellatio occurs with any contact between the penis and another's mouth, tongue, or lips. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that expert testimony on blackouts was properly excluded because it would impermissibly address the defendant's capacity to form intent under the voluntary-intoxication statute, and that the jury instruction correctly reflected the statutory definition of sexual penetration, which targets the act itself rather than any resulting stimulation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dr. Bradley Bangtson, an anesthesiologist whose employer notified him on July 16, 2007, that his employment would terminate on July 20 due to prior drug diversion. After receiving the notice, Bangtson assaulted a supervisor during the meeting, prompting the employer to end his employment immediately. An unemployment-law judge found Bangtson ineligible for benefits because the notice was not an immediate discharge and the assault constituted employee misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095. The court affirmed, holding that continuing employment remained available until July 20 and that the assault clearly violated the standards of behavior the employer could reasonably expect.

labor & employment

The case involved Jay Andrew Olson, who pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including felony aiding and abetting harassment with a firearm after an August 2007 incident in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in which he and others recklessly discharged firearms, harassed campers, and damaged property. The district court imposed the presumptive 36-month prison sentence under Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5(a), rather than granting Olson's motion for a downward dispositional departure based on his amenability to probation and the lighter sentences received by co-defendants. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because departures require substantial and compelling circumstances, a sentencing court is not required to depart even when amenability to probation is shown, and differing sentences among co-defendants who pleaded to different offenses do not entitle a defendant to a reduced sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Shannon Murphy challenging the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services' refusal to set aside her disqualification from direct-contact employment in licensed adult-foster-care facilities, which stemmed from the involuntary termination of her parental rights in 1986. A 2005 amendment to the Background Studies Act barred the commissioner from setting aside disqualifications based on involuntary terminations, leading the commissioner to deny Murphy's request without evaluating evidence that she posed no risk of harm, unlike prior set-asides granted in 2003 and 2004. Murphy argued this violated equal protection under the Minnesota Constitution by treating involuntary and voluntary terminations differently without a rational basis tied to risk. The court agreed, holding that the statute lacked a genuine and substantial distinction between the two categories for predicting harm to vulnerable adults and thus denied equal protection, reversing the decision and remanding for reconsideration of Murphy's risk of harm.

civil rightsfamily law

The case involved John Frelix challenging the dismissal of his petition for no-fault arbitration against his insurer State Farm after a car accident. The district court stayed the arbitration because Frelix incurred over $40,000 in surgery expenses on the same day his petition was filed, exceeding the $10,000 limit for mandatory arbitration. The court affirmed, holding that arbitration commences upon receipt of the petition by the AAA, and that the medical expenses were incurred at the time of filing, making the total claim exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The reasoning emphasized the statute's intent for a bright-line rule distinguishing small claims and avoiding absurd minute-by-minute calculations.

procedure

The case involved Allan Baumann challenging the denial of his motion to suppress marijuana evidence found in his apartment after a drug-detection dog alerted in the common hallway, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the dog-sniff search based solely on an apartment manager's report of high short-term traffic. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that the manager's report provided the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion under the Minnesota Constitution to justify the search. The court reasoned that, consistent with prior precedent, the information was more than an unarticulated hunch, the resident had minimal privacy expectation in the common hallway, and the search was minimally intrusive, thus allowing the evidence from the subsequent warrant.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Leutschaft, the defendant appealed his convictions for second-degree assault and marijuana possession arising from a road-rage incident in which he was accused of pointing a handgun at another driver. He claimed the prosecutor committed misconduct by implying he tailored his testimony, asking improper "were they lying" questions, introducing irrelevant prejudicial evidence about a gun permit, vouching for the complainant, and making inflammatory public-policy arguments about road rage during closing. Applying plain-error review because no objections were made at trial, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that any errors were not plain or did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The court therefore affirmed the convictions, concluding the prosecutor's actions did not deprive Leutschaft of a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure