This case involved a claim for damages after the plaintiff was bitten on the lip by the defendant's dog, resulting in a scar that required surgical revision. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000 for past damages and nothing for future damages. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for additur, increasing the award to $5,000, finding the original verdict conservative. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the jury by granting additur without the verdict being so inadequate as to indicate passion or prejudice.
In Villeneuve v. Commissioner of Public Safety, the Commissioner revoked Joan E. Villeneuve's driver's license after she failed to provide an adequate breath sample on an Intoxilyzer following her arrest for driving while under the influence, which was treated as a refusal under Minnesota's implied consent law. Villeneuve sought judicial review, arguing she was physically incapable of refusal because she had suffered a concussion in the accident that left her confused about how to perform the test, even though she appeared normal to the officer and had indicated she understood the advisory and agreed to test. The trial court sustained the revocation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the officer had no indication at the time that she was incapable of refusal and that she had deliberately blocked the mouthpiece while refusing an alternative blood test. The court held that Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2c applies only when the officer knows of incapacity at the time of the advisory, and that post-hoc medical evidence of confusion cannot override the driver's apparent ability to refuse, as that would frustrate the statute's purpose of preserving the choice to refuse testing.
The case involved owners of a garden center who obtained a special use permit for a parking lot but later built a garage on it without amending the permit as required, leading to a stop order from the city. After the city denied an amendment application, the owners sued for declaratory relief, and the trial court granted them summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing the special use permit because the owners had constructive notice of its conditions, their reliance on the building permit was not in good faith, and estoppel is applied sparingly in zoning matters to protect public interests in uniform enforcement. The court remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the city.
This case involved appeals by Northwestern Bell challenging Minnesota Public Utilities Commission orders that vacated and modified a 1984 rate increase order after allegations of improper ex parte communications between company representatives and two commissioners during the original proceedings. The Commission had initially granted a $57.5 million annual rate increase following contested hearings, later adjusted it slightly, and then reopened the matter upon discovering the contacts, ultimately vacating the order and requiring the company to provide certain services free to handicapped customers. The court affirmed the Commission's authority to reconsider and vacate the prior order based on the potential taint from ex parte contacts, applying standards that consider whether the agency's process was irrevocably compromised. However, it reversed the portion of the order mandating free Touch-Tone and Speed Call services, finding insufficient evidence that the company could absorb the revenue loss without affecting its overall rate of return or that other customers would offset it.
In this case, a driver's license was revoked after he refused chemical testing following a traffic stop for driving with high beams on and weaving toward the parking lane. The trial court rescinded the revocation, finding the stop invalid and no probable cause for driving under the influence. The appeals court reversed, holding that the stop was lawful because failure to dim headlights is a misdemeanor under Minnesota law and the lack of a citation does not invalidate it. The court further held that probable cause existed based on the officer's observations of alcohol odor, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, staggering, and deliberate movements, even though the driver refused field sobriety tests. The decision upheld the revocation of the driver's license.
The case involved a claim for no-fault personal injury protection benefits under an automobile insurance policy after Chester Wiczek died from carbon monoxide poisoning while sleeping in his unhitched travel trailer at a fairground. The trial court ruled that the death was covered, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that coverage requires the injury to arise out of the use of the motor vehicle for transportation purposes, and here the camper was being used as a temporary residence rather than as a vehicle, making it merely the situs of the injury without the necessary causal connection.