Larry Stauber jr

This case involved minority shareholders in Cold Spring Granite Company who, after refusing offers to redeem or convert their shares, challenged a board-approved 1-to-7,132.23 reverse stock split that fractionalized their holdings and led to involuntary redemption at a board-determined price of $986.50 per share. The shareholders sued for judicial valuation under the Minnesota Business Corporations Act, arguing they were entitled to dissenters' rights or equitable relief for unfairly prejudicial conduct. The district court, adopting the special master's findings, ruled in favor of the corporation and its majority shareholder, concluding that the reverse split and redemption were permitted without a shareholder vote, that the board's fair-value determination was conclusive absent fraud, and that no dissenters' rights applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutory scheme did not provide for judicial revaluation here and that the transaction followed corporate formalities, including an independent appraisal and abstention by interested directors, so equitable relief was unavailable on these facts.

business & regulatory

In State v. Jeffries, the defendant was charged with felony domestic assault and entered a guilty plea under a negotiated agreement for a stayed sentence, which the district court accepted in open court before later rejecting the agreement due to the defendant's criminal history and allowing withdrawal of the plea. Jeffries then entered a second guilty plea and was convicted and sentenced to 60 months. On appeal, he argued that the initial plea acceptance constituted a conviction that triggered double jeopardy protections and barred further prosecution. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that jeopardy attaches at sentencing rather than plea acceptance in guilty plea proceedings and that the second counseled guilty plea waived the double jeopardy claim. The court also rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel argument, concluding that the claim was tenuous under existing Minnesota law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Holmes, Todd Holmes was convicted of theft by nonpayment for improvements under Minn. Stat. § 514.02, subd. 1(b), after accepting a $5,000 down payment for barn and house repairs but failing to perform the work or return the funds. The district court instructed the jury that the statute prohibits receiving payment for a real-estate improvement and not using the proceeds for that improvement. On appeal, the court reversed the conviction, ruling that the statute instead requires proof that the defendant failed to pay others for labor, skills, materials, or machinery contributed to the improvement, knowing those costs remained unpaid. No evidence showed that Holmes had obtained any such contributions for the project, so the conviction was reversed for insufficient evidence.

criminal law

This case involved Raymond Robideau's appeal from his conviction for second-degree intentional murder after stabbing his girlfriend to death. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in admitting an allegedly involuntary statement for impeachment or in the detective's credibility opinions, as any issues were harmless given the strong evidence of guilt including confessions to inmates and physical evidence. Regarding sentencing, although one aggravating factor was invalid, the court upheld the upward departure because it was also based on the valid factor of the crime occurring in the presence of the victim's child, whom the defendant knew would likely discover the body, and the district court indicated it would have imposed the same sentence on that basis alone.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jesse Wayne Harrison challenging the revocation of his driver's license on two occasions following DWI arrests, where he had consented to blood tests under the implied-consent law. Harrison argued that the subsequent warrantless testing of the preserved blood samples for alcohol concentration violated his rights against unreasonable searches under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, and that the evidence should have been suppressed. The district courts sustained the revocations, finding no warrant was needed for testing after lawful seizure of the samples. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that once blood is lawfully obtained specifically for alcohol-concentration analysis, the individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in that information, so the testing does not constitute a search implicating constitutional protections.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a negligence claim by Charles Rodenwald against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources after he slipped on smooth, clear ice in a DNR driveway while working there and sustained injuries. The district court granted summary judgment to the DNR, applying the mere-slipperiness rule, which holds that a governmental entity has no duty to remove ice from public areas unless it has formed dangerous ridges, obstructions, or irregularities. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the rule's rationale—avoiding physically impossible or financially unreasonable burdens in Minnesota's climate—applies equally to state agencies as to municipalities, and that the rule limits the duty of care rather than conferring immunity. The court also found no genuine issues of material fact, as the ice was undisputedly smooth and slippery without additional hazards, and rejected arguments that the rule had been statutorily abrogated or did not extend to state entities.

torts & liability

This case arose after appellant David Miller discovered mold and moisture issues in his newly purchased home and sued the prior owners and contractors involved in earlier remediation work. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims as a spoliation sanction because Miller had repaired the home without giving respondents sufficient advance notice and opportunity to inspect. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the mold and moisture damage due to the repairs and that Miller's claims under Minn. Stat. § 513.57 were properly dismissed.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Vasquez, the appellant was convicted of third-degree unintentional controlled-substance murder based on evidence that he sold heroin to Robert Chapman and A.E.W., after which A.E.W. injected the drug and died. Chapman, who arranged the purchase and injected the heroin, testified against Vasquez at trial after cooperating with police to avoid his own charges. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that Chapman qualified as an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration under Minnesota law. The district court’s failure to instruct the jury on this corroboration requirement constituted plain error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights and the fairness of the proceedings, given the limited independent evidence linking Vasquez to the specific transaction on the date of the death.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a real estate developer and its owners challenged a bank's right to foreclose on a mortgage after the developer defaulted on a construction loan agreement, along with the length of the redemption period and awards of attorney fees and a late-payment fee. The court affirmed the district court's rulings that the developer was in default, entitled to only a six-month redemption period, and that the bank could recover attorney fees, based on the terms of the loan and forbearance agreements and the lack of any excusing breach by the bank. However, the court reversed the award of the late-payment fee because the loan agreement explicitly excluded such fees for the final payment on the maturity date, remanding for further proceedings on that issue.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Johnson, the appellant pled guilty to gross-misdemeanor driving after cancellation and felony first-degree driving while impaired; the district court imposed a one-year jail sentence for the gross misdemeanor followed by a consecutive 75-month stayed felony sentence calculated using a criminal history score of eight. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F requires a criminal history score of zero to determine the duration of a permissive consecutive felony sentence authorized by Minn. Stat. § 169A.28, subd. 3. The core reasoning was that the guidelines' zero-score rule for consecutive sentences applies to those permitted by statute as well as to those listed in the guidelines themselves, and the statute prevails over any conflicting guideline language.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a marital dissolution in which the parties disputed the division of equity in their homestead and funds in a retirement account. The district court awarded the wife a nonmarital share of $67,619 in homestead equity and $33,591 in the retirement account. The court of appeals affirmed the homestead award, holding that the wife's pre-marital contribution to closing costs and taxes preserved her nonmarital interest under the Schmitz formula and that subsequent refinancing and home-equity borrowing did not reduce it. The court reversed the retirement-account award and remanded, concluding that the district court had not made adequate findings on tracing of nonmarital gifts or the calculation of nonmarital shares.

family lawproperty

In Rucker v. Schmidt, a woman who had won a fraud-on-the-court judgment against her ex-husband for misrepresenting the value of his business interest in their divorce proceedings later sued his dissolution attorney and law firm on related fraud, fraud-on-the-court, and aiding-and-abetting claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the attorney and firm, ruling that res judicata barred the new action because the attorney-client relationship alone placed them in privity with the ex-husband. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an attorney-client relationship by itself does not establish privity for res judicata purposes and remanding for further proceedings.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a bicycle-motor vehicle collision at the intersection of a state recreational trail and a private driveway. The plaintiff bicyclist sued the defendant driver for negligence, seeking a jury instruction based on DNR trail rules that require trail users to yield to those already on the treadway. The district court declined to give the instruction, concluding the driver was not a "trail user," and the jury found no negligence by the driver. On appeal, the court held that the driver was a trail user subject to the rules because he was employing the trail by crossing it, reversed the decision, and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages.

torts & liability

This case concerned a dispute between a school district and the parents of a disabled fifth-grader over the inclusion of supplementary aids and services in the child's individualized education program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) had ruled that the district violated IDEA by failing to document these accommodations in the IEP and ordered corrective actions, including for a PTO-sponsored graduation party. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district must address such aids in the IEP for selected activities but was not obligated to provide them for the off-site PTO event since it was not district-sponsored. The court's reasoning focused on the statutory requirements of IDEA regarding IEP contents, the availability of complaint procedures, and the limits of district responsibility under federal regulations.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a landowner, John Kennedy, who petitioned Pepin Township for a cartway to access the buildable portion of his landlocked property under Minnesota Statute § 164.08. The township granted a cartway across neighboring land that only reached an unusable lower part of Kennedy's property, reasoning that the statute did not require access to a specific portion. The court reversed the township's decision, holding that the statute entitles the owner to access for a usable tract of at least five acres and that providing access only to unusable land does not fulfill the requirement, based on the statutory language and prior case law interpreting "tract of land."

property

In Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, the wife petitioned for an order for protection against her husband on behalf of herself and their children, alleging past physical incidents including one resulting in his disorderly conduct conviction and more recent aggressive actions such as slapping her feet, yelling, persistent questioning, and controlling behavior that caused her to fear imminent bodily harm. The district court granted a six-month OFP after determining on the record that her fear was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances and credible testimony. The husband appealed, claiming the findings lacked record support. The appellate court held the appeal was not moot due to statutory collateral consequences attaching to an OFP and affirmed the order, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion because the evidence supported the findings when viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner and credibility determinations are left to the factfinder.

family law

The case involved appellant A.C. Jackson's conviction for attempted first-degree aggravated robbery after three masked men, one armed with a shotgun, attempted to rob a bar; police recovered a shotgun, shells, and a mask near the scene, and multiple witnesses identified Jackson by his clothing and appearance. On appeal, Jackson argued that admitting a firearm-trace report through the testimony of a police officer who neither performed the trace nor prepared the report violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the report was not testimonial because it was not prepared for purposes of litigation. The court further reasoned that even if the report's admission constituted plain error, it did not affect Jackson's substantial rights.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In this marital dissolution case, the parties agreed to joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children but litigated the mother's request to relocate the children's primary residence from Mankato to Lakeville within Minnesota, the calculation of the mother's self-employment income for child support, application of the Hortis/Valento adjustment, and division of an unimproved parcel of real estate near the mother's homestead. The district court imposed an in-state residence restriction, awarded the parcel to the father with usage limits, and computed support without certain deductions or the proper adjustment. The court of appeals held that the district court has authority to impose in-state residence restrictions but reversed and remanded because the findings did not sufficiently demonstrate that the restriction served the children's best interests; it also reversed the support calculation for omitting business deductions, using the wrong FICA rate, and relying on speculative parenting time; and it affirmed the property award as a proper discretionary balance of privacy and ownership interests.

family lawproperty

In MidCountry Bank v. Krueger, a mortgage lender challenged a district court's summary judgment ruling that a subsequent purchaser and her lender were bona fide purchasers without notice of the lender's prior mortgage on the property. The mortgage had been properly recorded with a document number and appeared under the sellers' names in the county's grantor-grantee index, but a recorder's indexing error omitted it from the tract index for that parcel. The district court held that the purchaser had no constructive notice because the mortgage was not visible in the tract index. The appellate court reversed, ruling that a purchaser is charged with constructive notice of the contents of all properly recorded documents in both the grantor-grantee and tract indices, so the prior mortgage retained priority over the later deed and mortgage.

property