Susanne C. Sedgwick

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.

torts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liability

The case involved Marvin Anderson, who was charged with four misdemeanor counts of violating Isanti County zoning ordinances by storing unregistered vehicles, accumulating solid waste, and operating a junkyard on his farm property. The trial court admitted evidence from inspections and aerial photographs over defense objections regarding lack of required notices under criminal procedure rules, and the jury convicted Anderson on three counts. The appellate court reversed the two solid waste convictions because the state failed to introduce evidence in its case-in-chief that Anderson lacked a required PCA permit, as needed to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but affirmed the junkyard conviction because photographs and testimony sufficiently established storage of junk and unregistered vehicles. The court held that the prosecution must establish a prima facie case before the defendant presents a defense and that the ordinance permitted conviction based on storage alone without proof of buying or selling.

criminal lawpropertyenvironmentprocedure

In State v. King, Dennis King was convicted of second- and third-degree assault based on the testimony of his girlfriend Pearl Blanchard, who initially told police she had been attacked by strangers but later identified King as her assailant after a party. King appealed, arguing in part that newly discovered evidence from witness George Dorr warranted a new trial because it contradicted Blanchard's account of events and King's motive. The court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to assess Dorr's credibility and for the trial court to reconsider King's motion for a new trial under the standard from State v. Owens. The court also vacated King's conviction and sentence for third-degree assault, holding that statutes prohibit convictions for both a greater and lesser degree of the same offense or multiple punishments for the same behavioral incident. King's other claims, including challenges to Blanchard's testimony and sufficiency of the evidence, were rejected.

criminal lawprocedure

In Adler v. Safeco Insurance Co., an arbitration panel initially awarded Elizabeth Adler prejudgment interest on $50,000 in uninsured motorist benefits after her husband's death in a car accident, then modified the award to eliminate the interest upon realizing Safeco's prior settlement offer matched the amount awarded. The trial court vacated the modification and restored the original award (except costs), and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that Minnesota arbitration statutes permit arbitrators to modify awards only for evident miscalculations, mistakes in description, or clarification of form, not to correct substantive legal errors such as an improper award of prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09. Judicial review is narrowly limited and does not allow vacating awards based on arbitrators' errors of law.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose after Lawrence Engle died in a car crash following his release from a county-run crisis intervention center, where a social worker had assessed his paranoia and drug use and arranged for voluntary transfer to a private hospital rather than imposing an emergency hold. Engle's trustee sued Hennepin County for negligence in the assessment and release decision. The trial court denied the county's motion for summary judgment on grounds of governmental immunity, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the social worker's decision was a discretionary function protected from tort liability under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6, because it required professional judgment on patient needs, public safety, and hospitalization rather than a purely ministerial act. The decision followed the precedent in Cairl v. State, which shields such evaluative release determinations from after-the-fact liability.

torts & liability

The case involved a driver whose license was revoked after he refused chemical testing following his arrest for driving while under the influence. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to sustain the revocation. The officer approached a vehicle reported as suspicious in a neighborhood with recent burglaries, and upon smelling alcohol and observing unsteady balance, requested identification and further investigation. The court reasoned that approaching a parked vehicle does not constitute a seizure and that the officer had sufficient articulable facts to justify the limited intrusion of requesting identification.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her daughter M.M.D., who was born in 1980, based on repeated neglect petitions citing the mother's chemical dependency, failure to provide adequate housing and supervision, and the child's exposure to sexual abuse by the mother's associates. The mother appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to determine that past and present problematic conditions would continue for a prolonged and indeterminate time. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination on multiple statutory grounds under Minn. Stat. § 260.221, including substantial continuing neglect and conditions permanently detrimental to the child's physical and mental health. The core reasoning was that expert testimony from psychologists established the mother's personality disorder, low IQ, oppositional behavior, and history of failed interventions made effective parenting improbable now and in the future, with the child's emotional damage likely to worsen as she aged, consistent with precedents like In re T.M.D.

family law

Eugene Andersen was arrested for driving while under the influence after a citizen witness reported seeing his vehicle strike a parked car and flee the scene. He failed a breath test showing an alcohol concentration of .17, resulting in revocation of his driver's license, which he petitioned to review on the ground that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. The trial court sustained the revocation, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances based on the reliable citizen witness's observations of the fleeing vehicle and the officer's direct observations of Andersen's slurred speech, unsteady gait, and strong odor of alcohol, without relying on Andersen's later admission that he was the driver.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant initially charged with a misdemeanor for driving under the influence after a breath test showed elevated blood alcohol content. Upon learning of a recent prior conviction, the state moved to dismiss the complaint to recharge under a gross misdemeanor statute, and the trial court granted the motion but specified the dismissal was with prejudice. The state appealed, arguing that the with-prejudice language unintentionally barred refiling under the gross misdemeanor provision. The court determined that the phrases with prejudice and without prejudice have no bearing on the finality of a criminal dismissal and do not prevent renewed prosecution, making the order non-appealable under the rules of criminal procedure. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Verdell Gulbranson sued her ex-husband Keith to recover $6,000 in 1983 rents from farmland awarded to her in their marriage dissolution, which she claimed had been erroneously paid to him. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by res judicata, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that a prior stipulation, approved by the court as a final judgment with prejudice, had resolved related disputes over the property, contract payments, and 1982 rents; allowing the new suit would constitute impermissible claim-splitting because the 1983 rent issue could have been raised in the earlier litigation.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Wayne Rubin’s appeal from the denial of his motion to reduce a 41-month burglary sentence, which was based on a criminal history score that included seven points from 1976 convictions for uttering forged instruments. Rubin argued that those prior convictions should not count because they rested on guilty pleas entered without valid waiver of the right to counsel. The court held that the 1976 record showed Rubin was properly advised of his rights, explicitly waived counsel both orally and in writing after consulting an attorney, and therefore the convictions were properly included in his score under State v. Edmison and State v. Motl. It distinguished contrary precedent as inapplicable because it concerned appointment of standby counsel rather than waiver and involved trial rather than a guilty plea. The sentence was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved appellants North Star Seed Company and its owners, the Kruegers, who sought to enjoin respondent Washington Federal Savings Bank from foreclosing on a mortgage secured by their agricultural property and to compel mediation under Minnesota's Farmer-Lender Mediation Act. The trial court denied the motion for a temporary injunction, finding that appellants did not qualify as debtors entitled to mediation and that mediation had already occurred with the bank. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because North Star did not meet the statutory criteria for a family farm or authorized farm corporation and the Kruegers' status as farmers operating a family farm was not sufficiently established. The court further noted that the bank had participated in mediation proceedings initiated under the Act, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief. The foreclosure proceeded after appellants did not post a required bond.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Donald Ray Goff, who pleaded guilty to theft and challenged the use of his prior felony convictions in calculating his criminal history score for sentencing under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The trial court included the convictions without requiring the state to prove they were not obtained in violation of Goff's right to counsel. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under State v. Edmison and United States v. Tucker, the state must prove that each prior felony conviction was obtained with counsel or a valid waiver on the record before it can be used for sentencing. The court reasoned that the same concerns about the right to counsel that apply to misdemeanors extend to felonies, which carry even harsher consequences, and that this aligns with the state's burden to establish a defendant's criminal history.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved George Hood's appeal of his convictions for two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of false imprisonment, based on an incident in which he allegedly abducted a 14-year-old girl, assaulted her, and held her overnight. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the evidence was sufficient due to the victim's corroborated testimony, medical findings of seminal fluid, and Hood's own admissions regarding her presence and age. It further held that Hood failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel or a denial of his right to self-representation, as his complaints largely resulted from his own lack of cooperation, counsel's reasonable tactical choices, and non-prejudicial evidentiary rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Warren, Clifford Warren appealed his convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop of his vehicle. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the officer had specific and articulable facts from a reliable informant—Warren's separated wife, who reported a domestic dispute, that Warren was intoxicated, had taken their child, and was driving a Ford Mustang toward White Earth—which were corroborated when the officer observed a matching vehicle in the described rural area late at night. Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the informant's credibility and the vehicle's location and timing, the stop was valid.

criminal lawprocedure