James C. Otis

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by truck driver George Rogde, who suffered a work-related back injury resulting in a 10% permanent partial disability and sought continued temporary total disability benefits after his employer's insurer discontinued payments in November 1979. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the compensation judge and Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, denying benefits after that date. The court held that Rogde had not met his burden of proving total incapacity from gainful employment under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 2, because undisputed evidence showed he was capable of light work (lifting up to 25 pounds), made no diligent efforts to seek employment or regain his revoked driver's license, refused alcoholism treatment, and had already received compensation for his partial disability.

labor & employment

The case involved a defendant convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and aggravated robbery for raping and robbing a university student. The defendant appealed, arguing that identification testimony from the victim and two Spreigl witnesses was improperly admitted, references to mug shots prejudiced the jury by suggesting a prior criminal record, and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during cross-examination and closing argument. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant had forfeited some claims by failing to object in a timely manner, that the identification procedures were confirmatory rather than unduly suggestive, and that any evidentiary issues or unobjected-to conduct did not constitute prejudicial error warranting reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Johnson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342(a) (1980) for sexually penetrating a 12-year-old girl after approaching her and other children in a park, luring her away, and using a knife to force the assault. The trial court excluded expert testimony that the defendant was a chronic alcoholic whose intoxication was involuntary, and it imposed an upward departure sentence of 240 months rather than the presumptive 132 months. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that self-induced intoxication by a chronic alcoholic constitutes voluntary intoxication that does not provide a defense to a general-intent crime, and that aggravating factors such as particular cruelty justified the sentencing departure.

criminal law

This case involved a criminal defendant's appeal of his conviction for cocaine possession, which stemmed from a pretrial ruling denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police encounter at the State Fair. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the officer's investigation did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned step by step that the officer was justified in approaching the illegally parked vehicle, shining a flashlight inside, investigating an apparent open-bottle violation based on visible plastic cups, reaching into the defendant's pocket after observing furtive movements and a possible weapon, and opening the discovered package, as each action was supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause under the circumstances.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant charged with attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for beating and sexually assaulting a woman he knew in St. Paul. A jury acquitted him of attempted murder and one sex offense but convicted him of assault and the remaining sex offense, after which the trial court imposed an upward departure sentence of 90 months instead of the presumptive 54 months. On appeal, the defendant sought reversal based on insufficient evidence of identification or a new trial due to allegedly prejudicial admission of Spreigl evidence regarding a similar prior incident. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the victim's positive identification was credible with no apparent motive to lie and that the Spreigl evidence was properly admitted to corroborate her testimony under controlling precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a City of Minneapolis employee injured in a work-related auto accident who received workers' compensation benefits and sought additional no-fault economic loss benefits from the city as a self-insurer under Minnesota's reparation security statutes. The trial court ruled that the employee could stack the benefits without limit under pre-amendment law, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed in part. The court held that municipalities must provide no-fault coverage despite workers' compensation immunity exceptions, but a 1980 statutory amendment preventing stacking of no-fault and workers' compensation benefits above $200 weekly applied to the employee's future losses. The core reasoning was that basic economic loss benefits accrue as losses are incurred over time rather than at the date of injury, so the amendment governed post-April 1980 payments, consistent with the statute's prospective language and legislative clarification of prior intent.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case concerned a minor child who sustained a facial injury from a dog bite while visiting neighbors' home to see puppies, suing the owners under Minn. Stat. § 347.22 for strict liability. The jury determined that the bite occurred because the dog was provoked by the child's actions despite warnings, leading to a defense verdict. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the judgment, reasoning that provocation is a jury question that can arise from unintentional acts and that the evidence supported the jury's finding, while the special interrogatory was not misleading. It distinguished the case from issues of comparative negligence in strict liability actions.

torts & liability

The case involved a fire at a veterinary clinic building that caused stipulated damages of about $240,000, where the plaintiff clinic sued the heating contractor for negligence in installing furnaces on wooden supports contrary to manufacturer recommendations. The jury found both parties negligent, attributing 55% fault to the plaintiff for failing to sheetrock the furnace room walls, which contributed to the fire's spread, and denied the plaintiff recovery under comparative negligence rules. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported submitting the plaintiff's negligence to the jury and that the instructions given were proper. Dissenting justices argued that the special verdict improperly asked whether plaintiff's negligence caused the fire itself rather than just the extent of damages and that instructions on strict liability and implied warranty should have been given.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Handy v. Garmaker, the plaintiffs sued their real estate agent and his broker for nondisclosure of the agent's dual representation of both the sellers and a buyer in the sale of an apartment building. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision imposing liability on the agent for breach of his duty to disclose and on the broker under real estate licensing statutes, even though the broker had no knowledge of the transactions. The court awarded return of the commission paid and damages for lost profits on later resales by entities connected to the agent, holding that the duty to disclose was absolute and the sellers' possible knowledge or presence at closing did not excuse the failure. The broker was granted indemnity against the agent.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved United States Steel Corporation's challenge under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 278 to the validity of Minn.Stat. § 273.02, subd. 4, which imposed an omitted property tax on newly discovered iron ore deposits, allowing retroactive assessment for the prior six years on the company's unmined Homestead Reserve property. The trial court upheld the tax against federal and state constitutional claims but invalidated the distribution of proceeds under subdivision 6 to the iron range resources and rehabilitation board account; the State cross-appealed that ruling. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding the statute valid in full, reasoning that the legislature possessed broad flexibility in taxation and that the unique difficulties in accurately valuing iron ore through selective drilling justified the classification and retroactive omitted-property mechanism.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether non-striking union employees at the Minneapolis Star and Tribune were disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 3 for participating in a strike by another union over compensation issues. The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed two decisions by the Commissioner’s representative that had disqualified the employees. For the Kabes group of pressmen and paper handlers, the court affirmed disqualification, concluding the employer had shown customary work was available and the employees had failed to perform it by not reporting after the initial day. For the Goines group, the court reversed the disqualification, holding the employer had not met its burden of proving that work was available and properly communicated amid management-union confusion during the strike. The decisions turned on evidence of whether the employees refused available work rather than on any direct participation in the picket line.

labor & employment

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree under Minnesota law, where the defendant claimed the complainant had consented to the sexual encounter. To rebut the consent defense, the prosecution introduced expert medical testimony describing the complainant's post-incident symptoms as consistent with rape trauma syndrome. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that admission of this evidence was fundamental error and prejudicial, relying on the reasoning in the companion case State v. Saldana. Dissenting justices argued that the testimony met evidentiary standards for reliability and helpfulness to the jury without unfairly prejudicing the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a city's denial of an amended special use permit allowing a business to replace a small 18-foot trailer office with a larger 50-foot mobile trailer on lakeshore property zoned for retail business. The company had operated under a 1975 permit that waived setback requirements, but the city council rejected the new request by a 3-1 vote, citing concerns about setbacks, the precedent of allowing mobile trailers on the lakeshore, and potential impacts on surrounding property values. The trial court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the permit, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the city's quasi-judicial decision was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The court emphasized that judicial intervention in municipal zoning matters is limited and that deference is required where the decision has a rational basis under the local ordinance standards, even if the court might have reached a different result.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved negligence claims brought by the owner of an apartment building destroyed by fire and by the mother of two children (one killed and one severely injured) after a mentally retarded youth with a history of arson set the fire during a holiday home visit from a state-run treatment facility. The plaintiffs alleged that state and county officials negligently released the youth and failed to warn them of his dangerous propensities. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The court reasoned that while a special relationship existed giving rise to a potential duty, that duty to warn extended only to specifically identifiable victims rather than statistically probable ones, and the decision to grant the pass was a discretionary governmental act immune from liability.

torts & liability

This case is a declaratory judgment action by Reliance Insurance Company against attorney Phillip Arneson and claimant Nicholas Von Arx to determine whether alleged legal malpractice by Arneson in handling a personal injury claim fell within the periods of expired malpractice insurance policies or whether notice was untimely. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court and held that Reliance had no obligation to defend or indemnify Arneson. The court reasoned that coverage extended only to acts or omissions during the policy periods and that professional negligence causing damage did not occur until the statute of limitations expired on the underlying claim, more than eight months after the last policy ended. Because damage is a required element of a negligence claim, no covered act took place within the relevant periods.

torts & liability

The case concerned Minnesota Statute § 161.44, which requires the state to first offer surplus highway land for reconveyance to the original owner or successors in interest. In 1967 the Department of Transportation acquired 14.7 acres from the Laudenbach family for $3,500 by threat of condemnation for Interstate 94; after a route change, 7.07 acres became unnecessary, and the state offered reconveyance at $154,000 reflecting current commercial value. First American National Bank, as trustee, sued to compel sale at the original price plus interest. The court held that the statute requires reconveyance at the amount originally paid by the state plus compounded statutory interest, interpreting the law to restore the status quo ante and prevent the state from profiting from value increases caused by the public project itself, consistent with eminent-domain valuation principles that exclude project-generated appreciation.

property

This case involved a wife's appeal from a district court order denying her motion to vacate an oral stipulation dividing marital property in a dissolution proceeding. The court set aside the stipulation after finding the wife had been unprepared for the hearing, had not been fully informed of its terms and consequences—including the need to sell the homestead and cover related costs—and had not had the amount she would receive stated in court. The decision modified the agreement so the parties would share the expenses of any sale and reduced the husband's equity share by half those costs, while also awarding the wife $600 in attorney fees, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Marquetti's convictions for aggravated robbery and burglary after he was caught with stolen items and a gun at the scene of a home invasion. On appeal, he challenged the admission of evidence regarding his prior arrest for possessing a structurally identical gun, certain statements by the prosecutor in closing argument, and the trial court's assignment of a criminal history score of one based on a 1972 Cuban conviction for stealing chickens when he was 16. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the gun evidence relevant to connect him to the crime and that any objections to the closing argument were forfeited, but it reduced the robbery sentence from 32 months to 24 months. The core reasoning for the sentence reduction was that the state failed to prove the foreign conviction qualified as an adult felony under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, as 16-year-olds generally are not prosecuted as adults for burglary in Minnesota, making the score zero instead of one.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a personal injury plaintiff and his attorney over the timing of contingent fees under a one-third agreement in a structured settlement of the client's claim against Ramsey County and another defendant. The settlement included an immediate $45,000 payment plus future installments totaling $110,800, and the attorney sought his full fee calculated on the present value of the entire settlement from the front money alone. The trial court granted that request on equitable grounds, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the contract term "recovered" must be construed as "received" when the parties did not specify otherwise. The court held that the attorney was entitled to one-third of the front money plus one-third of each future payment as received, emphasizing the attorney's ethical duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obtain a clear agreement on fee timing and to protect the client's expectations in the fiduciary relationship.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a declaratory judgment action by foster parents Ralph and Shirley Kern and their farm liability insurer against Steele County and its insurer, Western Casualty, to determine whether the Kerns qualified as county employees under the county's liability policy, which would require Western to defend and indemnify them in a tort suit brought by a foster child's natural mother after the child was injured by ingesting varnish remover in the Kerns' home. The district court granted summary judgment holding that the Kerns were employees while acting as foster parents. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Kerns were not employees based on the five-factor test for an employment relationship under agency law, as the county lacked meaningful control over the manner of performance, the fixed monthly stipend indicated an independent contractor arrangement, the Kerns supplied their own premises, and the other factors did not establish employment. The court emphasized that periodic monitoring and a right to remove the child did not overcome the weight of the other factors showing no master-servant relationship.

labor & employmentfamily lawtorts & liability