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

This case was a medical malpractice action for wrongful death, in which the plaintiff claimed that Dr. Tongen was negligent both in proceeding with stomach surgery on Phyllis Cornfeldt despite abnormal preoperative blood tests suggesting liver malfunction and in failing to obtain her informed consent by not disclosing the increased risks those tests indicated. After a retrial, the jury found for the plaintiff on the informed consent theory, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and ordered judgment for the defendant. The court held that an essential element of the claim—that the undisclosed risk actually materialized in harm as a result of the treatment—was unsupported by the evidence, which consisted only of speculative references to possible halothane hepatitis without expert testimony establishing causation to a reasonable probability.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a 17-year-old petitioner certified for adult prosecution and convicted of third-degree murder after a 1977 trial in which he did not testify and the court instructed the jury that self-defense did not apply as a matter of law. Petitioner sought postconviction relief, arguing that his counsel failed to inform him of key facts about testifying to support self-defense and that the trial court's no-self-defense instruction was erroneous. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the denial of relief and remanded for a new trial, holding that there was a reasonable possibility petitioner would have testified if adequately advised and that the specific no-self-defense instruction was prejudicially improper because it could mislead the jury about considering related evidence. The court directed that on retrial the jury should also consider possible manslaughter instructions supported by the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a widow seeking basic economic loss benefits under her deceased husband's no-fault automobile insurance policy after he died in an accident while driving an owned but uninsured vehicle. State Farm denied the claim based on a policy exclusion for injuries arising from an unlisted, uninsured vehicle owned by the insured. The trial court ruled the exclusion invalid under Minnesota's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act and granted partial summary judgment to the widow. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act mandates coverage for economic losses from vehicle accidents through the policy under which the injured person is insured, and that such exclusions improperly limit statutorily required benefits, consistent with prior precedents like Nygaard and Wasche. The decision noted the Act's compulsory insurance requirements and sanctions but found they did not authorize this contractual limitation on coverage.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves Donald Wayne Martin, convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, who petitioned for postconviction relief seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence from witness Carol Medina Nelson claiming others had committed the crime and framed Martin. The postconviction court denied relief, finding the evidence untrustworthy and unlikely to change the trial outcome, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The court concluded that Nelson's testimony lacked credibility due to her friendship with Martin, absence of corroboration, contradictions with other witnesses including the original trial testimony, and conflicts with Martin's own statements, and that it did not meet the standard of being so material as to make a different result probable on retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Robert Erickson against Curtis of Iowa and its insurer for injuries sustained in a fall during a driving test for a tractor leased from Dennis Holland. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals awarded compensation, finding Erickson was Curtis’ employee at the time of the accident, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The court rejected the argument that no employment relationship existed as a matter of law, citing conflicting evidence but substantial support for an implied contract of hire based on Curtis’ instructions, supervision, and payment for parts of the trip from the outset. The court further held that Erickson’s participation in the qualifying tests conferred a benefit on Curtis and did not terminate the employment contract, which was intended to continue unless Erickson failed the requirements.

labor & employment

In State v. Garner, the defendant was convicted by a jury of uttering a forged check after the trial court admitted a written confession obtained during police interrogation. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court determined that officers coerced the confession by employing stress-inducing interrogation methods, including threats to file multiple charges, physical intimidation through close proximity, deception about evidence such as a gun in a car, and exploitation of the defendant's intoxication, rendering the statement involuntary under the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling emphasized that coerced confessions are inadmissible and not subject to harmless-error analysis, even with other evidence of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wiese v. Wiese, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a district court order that increased a former husband's alimony payments from $100 to $250 per month. The underlying 1975 divorce decree had set alimony at $200 per month during child support payments and $250 thereafter, but a 1976 modification reduced it to $100; the wife sought restoration of the higher amount in 1979 based on increased living costs, home disrepair, and child-related expenses. The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances justifying the increase under Minn. Stat. § 518.64, but the supreme court reversed, concluding that the record contained no clear proof of facts showing such a change since the last modification and that modification must be supported by specific findings. Two justices dissented, arguing that the trial court had not abused its discretion given the evidence of rising expenses and stagnant income.

family law

The case involved Edward R. Clark's conviction by a jury for the first-degree murder of Michael Jiminez, with Clark appealing the judgment and denial of postconviction relief on multiple grounds including the admission of custodial statements, extrinsic evidence of a collateral theft, evidence relating to the death of the victim's wife, the legality of his warrantless arrest and searches of his vehicle and locker, and claims of prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged that some errors occurred at trial regarding evidence and procedures but determined that these errors, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the verdict was supported by the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Johnson v. McGough Construction Co., a general contractor sought indemnification from its subcontractor under their standard agreement after an employee of the subcontractor's sub-subcontractor was injured by slipping on ice on a path the general contractor was responsible for maintaining. The injury occurred while the employee was returning to the worksite after using a phone in the construction trailer to address an issue with the subcontract work. The district court granted summary judgment to the general contractor, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the indemnity provision expressly covers claims arising from the general contractor's own negligence, as its broad language requires the subcontractor to assume responsibility for all damages connected to the subcontract work and to indemnify the general contractor for claims it may be liable for. The decision applied a strict construction rule and found the required causal relationship between the subcontract performance and the injury.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of assault with a dangerous weapon after an incident in which an assailant grabbed a young girl from behind, poked her neck with a sharp pointed object, and fled after being observed. The defendant appealed the conviction, contending that identification testimony should have been suppressed as fruit of an unlawful misdemeanor arrest, that brief courtroom exposure to a later-suppressed jacket prejudiced the jury, that pretrial photographic identifications and a book of police photos were improperly admitted, and that evidence was insufficient to prove use of a dangerous weapon. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the identification evidence was admissible even assuming the arrest was illegal under state law because it was obtained independently or purged of any taint, the jacket's brief presence caused no prejudice, the photographic evidence was properly admitted on the contested issue of identity, and the victim's testimony plus wound photos supported an inference that a dangerous weapon was used.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by a bartender who developed the occupational disease of contact dermatitis, resulting in eight weeks of temporary total disability and an inability to return to that occupation. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals awarded temporary disability compensation and up to 156 weeks of retraining benefits under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 7. The employer-insurer appealed, contending that the statute applied only to cases involving scheduled permanent partial disability or indefinite continuous disability exceeding 26 weeks. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute covers any compensable injury that permanently or for more than 26 weeks prevents an employee from returning to the occupation held at the time of injury, provided retraining is certified as necessary to reduce resulting unemployability.

labor & employmentprocedure

Tri-State Land Company appealed a special assessment levied by the City of Shoreview for a storm sewer project serving its 417-acre property, arguing that the assessment of over $326,000 exceeded the special benefits to the land as measured by any increase in market value. The district court upheld the assessment under a deferential standard of review, finding that the city's appraisal was reasonably supported by the evidence. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that under Buettner v. City of St. Cloud the trial court must conduct an independent de novo review of whether the assessment exceeds special benefits once the property owner introduces competent evidence overcoming the presumption of validity, because the claim raises a constitutional issue of taking without compensation.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a postconviction proceeding following the 1976 convictions of petitioner for aggravated rape and indecent liberties. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of relief from the convictions, while striking one of two concurrent sentences under Minn. Stat. § 609.035. On the sufficiency of identification evidence, the court relied on its prior direct appeal decision finding the evidence adequate. Regarding alleged jury coercion, the court held that the trial judge's neutral inquiry about whether to adjourn or continue deliberations did not improperly pressure the jury. Finally, the court ruled that defense counsel's waiver of individual jury polling precluded reversal absent any showing of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a mother's appeal from a district court order granting an adoption petition by relatives after terminating her parental rights to her young son, based on a prior finding of neglect. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the termination of parental rights and vacated the adoption decree. The court held that the trial court's findings failed to satisfy the statutory requirement under Minn. Stat. § 260.221(b)(5) that reasonable efforts directed by the court had failed to correct the conditions leading to the neglect determination. The reasoning centered on the invalidity of certain imposed requirements, such as maintaining a separate residence and achieving financial self-support, as bases for termination, along with the principle that the child's best interests alone do not independently justify terminating parental rights.

family law