Printer Friendly

Court of Appeals Digest: May 20, 2019.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Public Employment

Discharge

Relator challenged the dismissal by respondent Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) of relator's petition under Minn. Stat. 179A.25 seeking independent review of a grievance arising from his discharge from employment by respondent Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit Division (MTC). Relator asserted that BMS erred by determining that 179A.25 does not apply because relator's employment was governed by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with a grievance procedure that included independent review, even though relator's union elected not to pursue independent review of his discharge.

The Court of Appeals held that 179A.25 does not provide for independent review by BMS of a grievance arising out of terms and conditions of employment when a CBA governing the employment provides a procedure for arbitration of the grievance. Affirmed.

A18-1786 Ruffenach v. Metro. Council, Metro Transit Div. (Bureau of Mediation Servs.)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa181786-052019.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Attorney Malpractice

Standard of Care

Respondents brought claims against appellants for malpractice, consumer fraud, and breach of contract arising out of appellants' legal representation of them in immigration matters and won monetary judgments at trial. Appellants presented a number of arguments on appeal relating to their motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), and respondents cross-appealed. Noting that an expert witness testified that he reviewed the contracts of all three respondents and none of them qualified for residency through I-601A forms and that appellants had breached the standard of care by accepting payment for those services, the Court of Appeals concluded that evidence supported the jury's malpractice verdict.

A18-0860 Cedillo v. Igbanugo (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180860-052019.pdf

Breach of Contract

Breach

This appeal arose from a consulting agreement between two businesses. A jury found that one party committed a breach of contract by not paying the other party approximately $150,000 in consulting fees. The limited issue on appeal was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence in the limited appellate recordspecifically, the testimony of respondent's principalswas more than sufficient to prove that appellant was obligated to pay each of respondent's monthly invoices. Affirmed.

A18-1447 Murphy Dressen Consulting, LLC v. CloudCover, Ltd.

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181447-052019.pdf

Civil Commitment

Mentally Ill; Findings

On appeal from his commitment as mentally ill, appellant argued that the District Court erred in (1) admitting hearsay evidence, (2) finding that appellant had made threats against government figures, and (3) concluding that appellant posed a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others as shown by a recent attempt or threat to harm others. Noting records showing appellant had a fixed delusion about wanting to fight the police and the government over the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court of Appeals concluded that District Court did not err in ruling that appellant posed a substantial likelihood of physical harm to others. Affirmed.

A18-2118 In re Civil Commitment of Meyer (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/opa182118-052019.pdf

Civil Commitment

Mentally Ill; Findings

Appellant appealed from the District Court's order continuing his civil commitment as a mentally ill person. He argued that the District Court's findings were not supported by the record and did not meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. 253B.12, subd. 4. Noting evidence that appellant had called the FBI several times because he believed that the "Chinese were trying to get him" and had stopped taking his medication, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court's findings supported appellant's commitment. Affirmed.

A18-2115 In re Civil Commitment of Valentyn (Steele County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa182115-052019.pdf

Civil Commitment

SDP & SPP; Discharge

Appellant Commissioner of Human Services challenged the order of the commitment appeal panel granting respondent's petition for provisional discharge, arguing that the panel clearly erred by failing to consider one of Commissioner's witnesses and improperly discrediting one of Commissioner's expert witnesses based on respondent's refusal to be interviewed. The Court of Appeals found no error, noting that there was considerable evidence in the record to support the panel's determinations that (1) there was no longer a need for treatment and supervision in respondent's current treatment setting and (2) the conditions of the provisional discharge plan would provide a reasonable degree of protection to the public. Affirmed.

A18-2143 In re Civil Commitment of Eberhardt (Commitment Appeal Panel)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa182143-052019.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant appealed from the District Court's termination of his parental rights, arguing that the record was insufficient to support the District Court's finding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Noting that appellant demonstrated predatory behavior toward his own children and chatted with another man about that man performing sexual acts on his daughter and her mother at the same time, the Court of Appeals found no clear error in the District Court's factual findings and no abuse of its discretion in determining daughter's best interests. Affirmed.

A18-1917 In re Welfare of Child of M.Z. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181917-052019.pdf

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Default

The matter came before the appellate court following a denial to reopen and vacate a default judgment and decree pursuant to Minn. Stat. 518.145, subd. 2. The District Court denied a motion to reopen and vacate for fraud and misrepresentation, and excusable neglect. Noting that appellant failed to establish a legal obligation for respondent to present his anticipated defense of a nonmarital interest in property, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly denied appellant's motion to reopen and vacate the judgment and decree based on fraud or misrepresentation. Furthermore, the District Court made sufficient findings in denying appellant's request for relief under the excusable-neglect standard. Affirmed.

A18-1383 Kienholz v. Kienholz (Morrison County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181383-052019.pdf

Domestic Relations

Spousal Maintenance; Modification

Respondent and appellant were married for approximately 18 years before their marriage was dissolved. In the dissolution decree, the District Court ordered appellant to pay permanent spousal maintenance to respondent. After appellant started a new job in Chicago and relocated there, he moved to modify the spousal-maintenance award. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that there was a substantial change in circumstances but that the change did not render the existing spousal-maintenance award unreasonable and unfair. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred in some of its findings concerning appellant's income and expenses and that, in light of those erroneous findings, the District Court must reconsider whether the existing spousal-maintenance obligation was unreasonable and unfair. It also concluded that the District Court erred by awarding need-based attorney fees in light of the resolution of appellant's arguments concerning his income and expenses. However, the District Court did not err by awarding conduct-based attorney fees to respondent. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0566 Browning v. Gruenstein (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180566-052019.pdf

Federal Employers' Liability Act

Loss of Earning Capacity

In an appeal from a final judgment on his claim for damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), appellant argued that the District Court erred by granting respondent's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the jury's award for loss of earning capacity. Because the evidence was legally sufficient to submit the issue to the jury, we reverse and remand for entry of an amended judgment in favor of appellant. Noting that question was not whether appellant would actually lose wages in the future, but whether he had lost earning capacity as the result of his injury, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred by requiring appellant to prove loss of future wages and by relying on appellant's continued employment at respondent railroad without medical restrictions and the absence of evidence that any wage loss would continue into the future. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0966 Carlson v. BNSF Ry. Co. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180966-052019.pdf

Harassment Restraining Orders

Harassment

Appellant disputed that messages he sent to respondent constituted repeated incidents of harassment necessary to support the District Court's issuance of a harassment restraining order (HRO). Noting that, in the context of a parenting dispute, on a single day appellant texted respondent "I've only just begun with you"; "You have only seen the tip of the iceberg from me in your life"; "I will ruin you"; and "I will never go away. . . when I'm gone, my children will take up the fight for me," followed by his message the following day that he would "keep coming back," the Court of Appeals determined that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in its issuance of the HRO. Affirmed.

A18-1185 Peterson v. Meyer (Olmsted County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181185-052019.pdf

Insurance

Limitations

Appellant-insured challenged the District Court's dismissal of her claims arising out of the burning of her home against respondent-insurers on contractual-limitation grounds. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because insured did not supply a reasonable alternative meaning for "the loss," the language of the police was unambiguous, and the District Court appropriately dismissed the action due to her failure to commence it prior to the expiration of the two-year limitation period. Affirmed.

A18-1463 Cox v. Mid-Minn. Mut. Ins. Co. (Stearns County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181463-052019.pdf

Medical Malpractice

Expert Witnesses

In this appeal from judgment following a jury trial on respondent patient's medical-malpractice claims arising out of brain injuries suffered following a knee replacement, appellants orthopedic surgeon and clinic challenged the denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial. To prove that appellant's alleged deviations directly caused her injuries, respondent argued two different paths of causation based on whether she had a neurological diagnosis of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)

Noting that, as a result of appellant's expert's testimony about vancomycin treatment, ADEM was Marquardt's only remaining causation theory for her neurological injuries, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant was entitled to a new trial, as neither of respondent's expert witnesses was a neurologist, nor did they have the requisite occupational experience to opine on ADEM or its cause. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0968 Marquardt v. Schaffhausen (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180968-052019.pdf

Slip & Falls

Recreational-Use Immunity

In this appeal from a District Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing appellant's claim that the negligence of respondent school district caused her to slip and fall on a patch of ice outside a youth basketball tournament, appellant argued that the District Court erred in applying recreational-use immunity under Minn. Stat. 466.03, subds. 1, 6e, 23, and the "mere slipperiness" rule. The Court of Appeals noted that there was no evidence that school district created the ice, or that respondent had either actual or constructive notice of the ice such that a fact-finder could possibly conclude that respondent "maintained" the condition. Affirmed.

A18-1358 Handelman-Seigel v. City of Edina (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181358-052019.pdf

Unemployment Benefits

Employment Misconduct

Relator challenged the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged from her position as a physical therapy assistant for employment misconduct due to improper billing practices. The Court of Appeals concluded that substantial evidence supports the ULJ's factual findings and credibility determinations, and that her overbilling for her therapy sessions and failing to make accurate records of work performed constituted employment misconduct. Affirmed.

A18-1493 Greenstein v. Allina Health Sys. (Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181493-052019.pdf

Zoning

Conditional-Use Permits

Relator challenged respondent's denial of its application for a conditional-use permit (CUP) to operate a contractors yard where it would store solid waste, arguing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision was supported by facts in the record, noting that both the opinion of land-use management and the zoning ordinance's definition of junk/salvage yard supported the determination that the storage of solid waste on the premises fell outside the scope of the definition of a contractors yard. Affirmed.

A18-1348 Simanski Metals, LLC v. Goodhue County Bd. of Comm'rs (Goodhue County Bd. of Comm'rs)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181348-052019.pdf

Criminal Published

Medical Marijuana

Persons

Following its ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss charges for intentionally transferring medical cannabis to a person other than allowed by law, the District Court certified the question: are sister wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company one "person," such that a transfer of cannabis oil from one subsidiary to the other cannot violate Minn. Stat. 152.33, subd. 1.

The Court of Appeals held that wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation are separate "persons" under Minn. Stat. 152.33, subd. 1. Certified question answered in the negative.

A18-1800 State v. Owens (Wright County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa181800-052019.pdf

Search Warrants

Informants

Police obtained a warrant to search appellant's home based on a tip from a confidential reliable informant that contraband was inside. The warrant application included no detail indicating how the informant came to observe the inside of the home. Appellant moved to suppress evidence found in the search on the theory that the informant may have been a police agent who unconstitutionally gathered the information by, for example, entering the home without his consent. And he moved the District Court to order the state to disclose the informant's identity, the nature of the informant's relationship with police, and the means by which the informant came to see the contraband inside the home. The District Court denied the motions, concluding that a common law privilege protected the informant's identity and that no evidence supported appellant's police agent entered without consent theory.

The Court of Appeals held that, if a warrant to search a home relies on information from a confidential police informant about contraband inside the home, but the warrant application includes no facts indicating whether the informant could be considered a government agent who violated the resident defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 entitles the defendant to discover non identifying information relevant to the constitutionality of the informant's conduct. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0761 State v. Dexter (Anoka County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPA180761-052019.pdf

Criminal Unpublished

Aiding & Abetting

Intentional Aid

Appellant challenges his convictions for aiding and abetting first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that he intentionally aided his codefendants in committing the offenses. Noting that the state did not have to prove that appellant committed an overt act or encouraged the other defendants to commit the sexual assaults of the female victims while appellant held the male victims at gun point, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circumstances proved showed that appellant was at the scene of the sexual assault, was described as the "leader" of the group, did not object to his codefendants carrying out the offenses, and left and remained with the principal offenders, and that this evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant did intentionally aid his codefendants. Affirmed.

A18-1152 State v. Easley (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181152-052019.pdf

Assault

Self-Defense

Appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court misstated the law when it gave the self-defense instructions to the jury. The Court of Appeals concluded that the instruction materially misstated the law by indicating that appellant's use of force could only be justified if he reasonably feared great bodily harm, rather than simply bodily harm. Furthermore, the error was not harmless, as it went directly to the fear-of-harm requirement for appellant's defense. Reversed and remanded.

A18-1096 State v. Lewis-Williams (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181096-052019.pdf

Brady Violations

Identification Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing, inter alia, that the postconviction court erred in determining that a Brady violation did not occur. Appellant alleged that following sentencing, defense counsel asked the prosecutor why the victim was not asked to identify appellant in court. The prosecutor informed him that, prior to trial, the victim had stated that she could not identify appellant in court. Appellant argued that the failure to disclose that information constituted a Brady violation. Noting that knowing that the victim did not identify appellant at trial was not the same as knowingbefore trialthat she was unable to do so, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant established that established that the suppressed evidence was material, and therefore a Brady violation occurred. Reversed and remanded.

A18-1176 State v. Derevitsky (Dakota County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181176-052019.pdf

Controlled Substance Possession

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed any amount of cocaine. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because the state did not need to prove appellant possessed a specific amount of cocaine, the trace amount found on the five-dollar bill in his pocket was sufficient to support his fifth-degree possession conviction. Affirmed.

A18-1108 State v. Adkins (Dakota County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181108-052019.pdf

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Sufficiency of the Evidence

A jury found appellant guilty of second degree criminal sexual conduct for fondling the genitals of his nine-year-old niece in his basement. Appellant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments, and that the District Court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after a juror admitted to conducting outside research. The Court of Appeals concluded that the victim's testimony was sufficient to support his conviction, that the prosecutor called attention to appellant's interest in the outcome of the criminal trial did not violate appellant's constitutional rights, and that a lone juror's improper research into the legal definition of "reasonable doubt" did not mandate mistrial. Affirmed.

A18-0663 State v. Nolan (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180663-052019.pdf

Probation Revocation

Need for Confinement

On appeal from the summary denial of his petition for postconviction relief, appellant argued that the postconviction court erred by concluding that the revocation of his probation and execution of his prison sentence was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant argued that the need for confinement does not outweigh the policies favoring probation because his violations were minor, technical violations. The Court of Appeals noted that the record reflected that appellant violated conditions of his probation several times over the course of his probation, including by consuming alcohol, and concluded that the summary denial of his petition for postconviction relief was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

A18-1746 Behrens v. State (Benton County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181746-052019.pdf

Prostitution

Patronage

Appellant challenged his conviction of patronage of a prostitute in a public place, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence did not support the jury's finding of guilt. Evidence showed that appellant approached a woman in a public park and asked her "how much," that when she responded, "For what," appellant replied, "For sex," and that when the woman asked for clarification of appellant's statement by asking, "What," appellant answered, "To pay you for sex." Appellant claimed the evidence supported two reasonable inferences: that he was seeking to learn if the woman would sell sex for money, or that he was inviting the woman to make him an offer rather that appellant making one himself. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant's hypothesis was based on mere conjecture and was unreasonable. Affirmed.

A18-1094 State v. Abdelrahim (Olmsted County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181094-052019.pdf

Restraining Order Violations

Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction of violating a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO). Appellant argued the District Court committed reversible error by denying his request to redact prejudicial information contained in the DANCO submitted to the jury as evidence. Assuming, without so ruling, admission of the unredacted DANCO was improper, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to establish the admission had a reasonable possibility to significantly affect the verdict, noting that the overall facts presented at trial established a strong case for conviction. Affirmed.

A18-1017 State v. Sanchez (Dakota County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181017-052019.pdf

Restraining Order Violations

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged his conviction of violation of a harassment restraining order (HRO) on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeals concluded that an email sent by appellant to his child's mother relating to the physical and emotional welfare of the child was sufficient to constitute a violation of the HRO, noting that the HRO restricted communication to parenting time, illnesses, and medical care. Affirmed.

A18-0420 State v. Sanborn (Waseca County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180420-052019.pdf

Right to Speedy Trial

Prejudice

Appellant challenged his convictions for fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct, arguing that the District Court deprived him of his right to a speedy trial. Appellant's trial began 66 days after his speedy-trial demand. The Court of Appeals found no violation of appellant's speedy-trial right, noting that appellant failed to show any prejudice resulting from the six-day delay. Affirmed.

A18-1159 State v. Benter (Mahnomen County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181159-052019.pdf

Searches

Dog Sniffs

In this direct appeal from final judgments of conviction and sentences for two counts of first-degree controlled substance crimes, appellant argued that (1) the District Court erred in determining that only reasonable, articulable suspicion was required to conduct a dog-sniff search in a common hallway of an apartment, and that (2) the District Court erred by entering convictions for first-degree sale and possession when the possession was a lesser-included offense of sale, and by considering the sentence of the possession conviction "merged" with the sentence of the sale conviction. The Court of Appeals noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court's recent decision State v. Edstrom, 916 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 2018), foreclosed appellant's dog-sniff argument. However, the District Court erred by entering convictions and sentences for both counts. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-1156 State v. Thibeau (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181156-052019.pdf

Sentencing

Restitution

Appellant challenged the District Court's restitution order following her conviction of theft of a motor vehicle. She argued that the District Court erroneously dismissed her restitution challenge by concluding that she failed to meet the statutory burdens of pleading and production. She also argued that the District Court abused its discretion by ordering restitution in the amount of $1,706.42 to be paid to the victim of the car theft. The Court of Appeals held that, because appellant made no specific objection to the restitution granted, the District Court did not err by dismissing her restitution challenge. Affirmed.

A19-0089 State v. Eidhammer (Cottonwood County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa190089-052019.pdf

Sentencing

Upward Departures

Appellant challenged his resentencing on remand from this court, arguing that the District Court impermissibly imposed two upward durational departures. Appellant had been convicted of a total of ten counts involving prostitution and sex trafficking. The Court of Appeals noted that appellant's initial sentence became a sentencing departure due to the incorrect application of the statutory aggravating factor, but that, because the District Court did not knowingly depart, it did not articulate reasons supporting a departure, and that therefore, an imposition of a departure on resentencing was precluded. Reversed and remanded.

A18-1338 State v. Ivy (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181338-052019.pdf

Witnesses

Bias

Appellant challenged his conviction of second-degree assault, arguing that the District Court erred by excluding evidence suggesting that a prosecution witness was racially biased. Accepting appellant's description of the Facebook posts as showing the victim's "distaste for Muslims in America, specifically Somali Muslims," the Court of Appeals concluded that they showed bias and that they were relevant, and that the District Court erred by disallowing any reference to the Facebook posts based on its conclusion that they had limited probative value. However, the erroneous exclusion was harmless, as the court was satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have found appellant guilty even if the damaging potential of the Facebook posts had been fully realized. Affirmed.

A18-1300 State v. Yussuf (Stearns County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181300-052019.pdf

Special Term Opinion

Eminent Domain

Relocation Benefits

In this certiorari appeal, relator sought review of an order issued by an administrative law judge (ALJ) that affirmed city's denial of relator's claim for relocation benefits under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (MURA). Relator's claim arose from the early termination of relator's lease of a bowling alley due to the construction of a soccer stadium and related infrastructure in the city. The city denied relator's claim for relocation benefits on the ground that a private party, rather than the city, acquired the property at issue. An ALJ granted the city's motion for summary disposition in a contested-case proceeding and affirmed the city's denial of relator's claim for relocation benefits. Relator sought and obtained a writ of certiorari. City filed a motion to discharge the writ of certiorari on the grounds that relator failed to timely serve the petition for the writ on the OAH and the writ of certiorari was directed improperly to the city rather than to the OAH.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) the judicial-review provisions of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), Minn. Stat. 14.63-.69, govern a certiorari appeal from an administrative law judge's determination of the eligibility for or the amount of relocation assistance that the acquiring authority must provide under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (MURA), Minn. Stat. 117.50-.56; and (2) because Minn. Stat. 14.63 only requires that the petition for the writ of certiorari be filed with the Court of Appeals and served on all parties to the contested case within the 30-day appeal period, relator's failure to serve the petition and the issued writ of certiorari on the agency within the appeal period did not deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction. Motion to discharge writ of certiorari denied.

A19-0237 In re Midway Pro Bowl (Office of Admin. Hearings)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/opa190237-052019.pdf

Copyright {c} 2019 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BridgeTower Media Holding Company, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Minnesota Lawyer
Geographic Code:1U4MN
Date:May 23, 2019
Words:4462
Previous Article:Supreme Court Digest: May 22, 2019.
Next Article:8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: May 23, 2019.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters