In State v. Hanson, the state appealed a pretrial order dismissing an enhanced felony charge of fifth-degree assault under Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 4(b), which applies when a defendant has two or more prior violent assault convictions within three years. The defendant had pleaded guilty to two such prior assaults arising from separate incidents but on the same day, and the trial court ruled that the statute required a specific sequence of convictions before the current offense could be charged as a felony. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the plain language of the statute does not require any particular sequencing of the prior convictions. The court reasoned that the statute merely uses the date of the first conviction as a benchmark for timing the current offense and contains no ambiguity or implied sequencing requirement.
The case involved Meridian Aggregates Company's challenge to the City of Waite Park's denial of a conditional use permit to operate a rock quarry on property zoned for heavy industrial use, following annexation from a township. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, upholding the denial based on concerns about impacts on surrounding development, lack of demonstrated need, and inadequate controls for dust and vibrations. The appellate court reviewed the record before the city council and concluded that the denial was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious because the stated reasons lacked legal sufficiency and factual support in the evidence presented. The court reversed the judgment and ordered issuance of the permit.
The case concerned the City of Minneapolis's challenge to an arbitrator's award reinstating police officer Michael Sauro, who had been terminated following a federal jury verdict finding he used excessive force against an arrestee after the individual was handcuffed. The arbitrator concluded the city had not proven just cause for discharge under the collective bargaining agreement, upheld a 20-day suspension, and ordered reinstatement. The district court granted summary judgment confirming the award, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the agreement, which did not define just cause or limit remedies, and that no well-defined public policy required automatic discharge of an officer found by a civil jury to have used excessive force.
In this case, a landlord operating subsidized housing brought an unlawful detainer action to evict a tenant after her adult son, a co-tenant, was found in possession of crack cocaine on the premises in violation of the lease terms prohibiting illegal activity. The housing referee ruled for the landlord, and the district court affirmed that decision. The court held that the lease expressly permitted cancellation and eviction proceedings upon any resident's engagement in illegal conduct, and the landlord was entitled to enforce those terms rather than modify the lease. It rejected arguments that the tenant herself had not violated the lease or lacked control over her son, noting that her occupancy rights derived solely from the lease and that public policy supports removing drug-related violations to maintain safe housing. The court affirmed the eviction order.
The case involved a petition to appoint the Commissioner of Human Services as public conservator for Holly Foster, an adult with moderate to severe mental retardation, schizoaffective disorder, and other disabilities, including the specific authority to consent to neuroleptic medication as part of general medical care decisions. The district court granted the conservatorship and general powers to consent to medical treatment but denied the power to consent to neuroleptic medication without additional court approval, specific written reports, review by an independent panel, and a determination of the conservatee's incompetence and the medication's necessity. On appeal by the Commissioner and Hennepin County, the court reversed, holding that once general authority to consent to necessary medical care is granted under the applicable statutes, no further individualized court procedures or approvals are required for neuroleptic medication. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of conservatorship powers and rejection of the district court's imposed extra requirements as unauthorized.
In AMCO Insurance v. Ashwood-Ames, the insurer appealed after the trial court confirmed a no-fault arbitrator's award of economic loss benefits to the claimant for injuries from an alleged car accident on Highway 62. AMCO had initially paid some benefits but later denied coverage and sought recovery, arguing no accident had occurred based on conflicting accounts from the claimant and the other driver. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by deferring to the arbitrator on whether an accident occurred for purposes of coverage under the No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act. The court reasoned that arbitrators under the Act are limited to factual issues, while questions of statutory or contract interpretation regarding coverage and the meaning of 'accident' must be decided by courts, especially when they determine whether a legal claim exists.