State v. Wiggins
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010-09-14 · cited 1×
In State v. Wiggins, the case involved a police officer who, during a lawful investigative stop of a car suspected of a drug transaction, ordered the defendant out, directed him to raise his hands, and pulled up his sagging pants, which led to the discovery of a handgun in his pocket. Wiggins, who had prior convictions, was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person after the district court denied his motion to suppress the gun evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the pants adjustment was not a search under the Fourth Amendment and did not constitute an unreasonable seizure-related contact during the detention, as it was done for safety and to facilitate a pat-frisk without any pretextual motive. The decision rested on the facts that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion from observed marijuana, the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and the gun's discovery was inadvertent.
criminal lawgunscivil rights
Dahlin v. Kroening
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010-07-06 · cited 8×
This case involved whether a judgment for unpaid spousal maintenance could be renewed multiple times through successive civil actions, each filed within ten years of the prior judgment. The district court denied the creditor's 2008 action seeking renewal of the 1998 judgment, holding that spousal maintenance judgments could not be renewed more than once. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that a renewed judgment has the same force as any other judgment and that Minnesota Statutes sections 541.04, 548.09, and 548.091 permit a new action within ten years of each existing judgment. The court reasoned that common-law practice and precedent allow judgment creditors to obtain successive new judgments to extend the enforcement period, without any statutory bar specific to spousal maintenance.
family lawprocedure
State v. Sterling
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010-05-18 · cited 1×
In State v. Sterling, the defendant was charged with fourth-degree DWI after providing breath samples on an Intoxilyzer machine that failed to immediately display or print his alcohol concentration level; the officer then requested and obtained a urine sample showing a .15 alcohol concentration, which formed the basis for the charges. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the urine test was unlawfully requested once the breath samples were deemed adequate and reliable. The district court denied the motion, and after a stipulated-facts trial, the defendant was convicted. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that an officer may lawfully request an alternative urine or blood test when the Intoxilyzer does not promptly provide the alcohol concentration reading needed to determine impairment at the time of driving, and that the urine test results were admissible even after the breath results became available later. The court distinguished precedents like Young v. Commissioner of Public Safety as limited to their specific facts and found no error in using the urine test result for conviction.
criminal lawprocedure
Dillon v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010-05-11 · cited 43×
The case involved Richard Dillon's challenge to his 240-month sentence for first-degree assault after he severely beat his wife, causing life-threatening injuries including broken ribs, liver laceration, eye fracture, and intestinal damage that required multiple surgeries and extended hospitalization. Dillon argued in postconviction proceedings that the upward departure from the 86-month presumptive sentence was excessive because it focused on the victim's injuries rather than his conduct, and that his prior appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise this issue on direct appeal. The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that the nature and extent of the victim's injuries supported severe aggravating factors justifying the departure and that counsel was not ineffective because the sentencing argument would not have succeeded. The decision rested on the district court's discretion in sentencing and the lack of prejudice from the omitted argument.
criminal lawprocedure
Western National Insurance Co. v. Thompson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010-05-04 · cited 2×
The case involved no-fault automobile insurance policyholders who refused to submit to examinations under oath as required by their policy after the insurer questioned aspects of their claims for medical expenses and wage loss following a car accident, arguing they had already fully cooperated. The insureds took the reasonableness of the request to arbitration and obtained awards, prompting the insurer to seek a declaratory judgment that the refusal constituted a breach of contract as a matter of law. The district court treated the issue as an arbitrable question of fact and confirmed the awards, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the contractual duty to submit to examinations under oath raised only legal questions of breach and coverage outside arbitrators' authority, with no statutory reasonableness precondition applying as it does to independent medical exams.
business & regulatoryprocedure
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010-03-16 · cited 12×
This case involved a bank suing an individual guarantor to collect on a defaulted business loan after the borrowing company went bankrupt. The guarantor sought to amend his answer to add a fraud-in-the-execution defense and raised other affirmative defenses such as estoppel based on alleged oral representations about the loan. The district court granted the bank summary judgment and denied the motion to amend. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the fraud claim could not survive summary judgment because undisputed facts showed the guarantor had a reasonable opportunity to review the document he signed, that the remaining defenses were barred by a statute prohibiting enforcement of oral credit agreements, and that damages were properly calculated from the outstanding loan balance without crediting a prior interest payment.
business & regulatoryprocedure