Walter F. Rogosheske

The case involved a personal injury suit by Gerald Rieger against Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. (BIR) and driver Michael Zackoski after Rieger was struck by Zackoski's car while both were attempting unauthorized laps on the racetrack following a racing event. The jury found Rieger and Zackoski negligent as a matter of law and apportioned 32% of the fault to BIR based on its failure to prevent spectators from accessing the track via the paddock area despite restricted signs and security personnel. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly submitted the entrant/trespasser issue and standard of care, that Zackoski's intervening negligence was not a superseding cause relieving BIR of liability, and that the evidence supported the negligence apportionment.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved the prosecution of defendant Miller for kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on attacks on three women in 1980. After the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence including a confession obtained following a warrantless arrest at the threshold of a residence, Miller was convicted on stipulated facts. The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to decide whether the arrest violated Payton v. New York and instead remanded for a hearing to determine if the confession was the fruit of any illegality in the arrest or was independently caused by a lawful apartment search. The court also rejected a claim that receiving a presentence report before the guilt finding denied a fair trial, finding the procedure was requested by the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted by a district court jury of three counts of burglary with tool under Minnesota law, who was sentenced to a maximum of 20 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence including Spreigl evidence from other burglaries, and the adequacy of the jury instructions. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no prejudicial error in the evidentiary rulings, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts, and that the instructions adequately addressed fundamental points such as burden of proof and presumption of innocence despite the lack of objection at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over sales commissions between The Brothers Jurewicz, Inc., a former manufacturer's representative, and Atari, Inc., after Atari terminated their 1976 sales agreement. Atari moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a clause in the agreement, which it located only after nearly a year of litigation had begun and discovery was underway. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Atari had lost its right to arbitration through laches. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly assumed jurisdiction over the laches defense because it concerned Atari's delay in seeking arbitration rather than the underlying dispute merits, and that laches correctly applied given the prejudice to the plaintiff from the extended litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a 1973 workplace injury to Roy Vieths, an employee of Archer-Daniels, when he was electrocuted while directing a crane near uninsulated powerlines owned by ADM, a wholly-owned subsidiary; Vieths sued the crane company and operator (Munson and Ripley), who then sought contribution from Archer-Daniels and ADM after settling for $120,000. The jury found ADM 50% causally negligent, Archer-Daniels 40% causally negligent, Vieths 10% negligent, and no negligence by Munson and Ripley, plus an agency relationship allowing imputation of fault to ADM, which led the trial court to award full contribution from ADM. The Minnesota Supreme Court determined there was sufficient evidence supporting the negligence findings but insufficient evidence of agency between Archer-Daniels and ADM, so contribution was warranted but the 100% apportionment to ADM was erroneous. The court reversed and remanded for adjustment of liability allocation, while rejecting claims of negligence as a matter of law against the crane operator.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether Plum Grove Lake qualified as public waters after unauthorized changes to a county road culvert and excavation of a private ditch drained most of its basins, prompting the Minnesota DNR commissioner to issue a 1977 restoration order to Becker County. Following a contested-case hearing, the commissioner adopted the hearing examiner's findings that the lake served beneficial public purposes and was therefore public waters subject to restoration. The trial court reversed the order as unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the order, concluding that the administrative record contained ample evidence of the lake's wildlife, waterfowl, and other public benefits supporting the commissioner's determination.

environmentprocedure