Minnesota Appellate Court Watch

Smile E. Face @realsmilyus X.com Henn Co. Sheriffs are definitely on the wrong side of history. They even got vehicles parked in the Whipple parking lot now.

remember that the sheriff is an elected position, and dawanna witt is up for reelection in november. let’s see if the way hennepin county sheriffs have been assisting ICE spurs a challenger

The resulting school choice order reads as a sustained one-sided defense of Respondent, portraying Appellant negatively at every turn while presupposing the conclusion that Minneapolis Public Schools are superior for [CHILD'S NAME REDACTED]—despite conclusions that can’t be reconciled with the record and defy any reasonable reading of it. The result is an order that is plainly absurd. This assessment is not unique to Appellant: every other one of the numerous reviewers—except for Respondent and the court—has reached the same conclusion. Appellant’s district court counsel described it as the most one-sided order she had ever seen and stated that she could not read it in one sitting due to how appalled she was by the district court’s treatment of the record. Where such a stark and unexplained disconnect exists between the record and the outcome, the absence of a coherent explanation risks undermining public confidence in the neutrality of the judicial process.

one of the funniest things about this petition is that it also mistakes the customer service commiseration of trial counsel for meaningful legal analysis. oh really, the lawyer who you've been paying to fight your school choice battle for a year-and-a-half thinks it's a bad beat? no way.

Issue #1 –Some Examples Demonstrating Clear Error that Materially Impacted the Best Interest Factors that the Court of Appeals gave Improper Deference to:  The district court took the #1 ranked public school district in the state against the #130 ranked and implied that the #130 ranked is better based on rankings—which obviously does not make sense. These types of nonsensical conclusions are reflected across multiple side-by-side metric comparisons in the record (App Reply Brief p.14 / App Brief p.9-12).  The district court chose to consider the student-teacher-ratio and Niche grade of Kenny to support Factor 1 not favoring Gleason Lake despite Gleason Lake having objectively superior statistics for the same metric and from the same source, presented to the court in a side-by-side exhibit. It’s presenting a metric to justify a decision while omitting that the alternative metric is objectively better—it just doesn’t add up (App Reply Brief p.14 / App Brief p.10).  The district court failed to even consider record evidence addressing the school district environment that directly favored Gleason Lake. This included undisputed indicators of safety and student well-being showing a dramatically higher level of student safety and satisfaction in Wayzata schools (App Brief p.22-23).  The district court expressly refused to weigh the foreseeable middle and high school pathways tied to each elementary option, despite record evidence showing the quality gap between Wayzata and Minneapolis widens substantially at those levels. This ignores obvious foreseeable consequences and departs from basic

decision-making logic—it’s akin to building a bridge without checking where it leads (App Brief p.20-21). o Further, the district court nevertheless relied heavily on continuity to favor Kenny, while declining to assess the future schools that continuity necessarily commits [CHILD'S NAME REDACTED] to. The court thereby adopted two mutually exclusive positions—a textbook error. Additionally, the court failed to recognize that starting kindergarten at Kenny is itself a material transition, despite [CHILD'S NAME REDACTED] attending a separate preschool in the same building (App Reply Brief p.21-22).  Under Factor 2, the district court defined school building continuity as a “recommended service” or “special parenting arrangement” and used that distortion to favor Kenny. That is not a close call or a debatable interpretation—it is objectively wrong (App Brief p.25-26 / App Reply Brief p.17).  The district court treated Wayzata’s recent intradistrict redistricting as if it made enrollment at Gleason Lake uncertain or subject to open enrollment, which is objectively wrong. The record contains direct, transparent confirmation from Wayzata Schools’ enrollment office that [CHILD'S NAME REDACTED] is fully eligible and guaranteed a spot at Gleason Lake. The record further demonstrates that Respondent’s earlier contrary position stemmed from a misunderstanding later clarified by the school. The district court had no discretion to contradict the school district’s own objective determination, yet it did so anyway (App Brief p.15).

dedicating more than 2 pages of your Petition for Review in an ongoing custody case to trashing Minneapolis Public Schools is the ideal litigation strategy. you may not like it, but this is what peak suburban mind looks like.

The resulting school choice order reads as a sustained one-sided defense of Respondent, portraying Appellant negatively at every turn while presupposing the conclusion that Minneapolis Public Schools are superior for [CHILD'S NAME REDACTED]—despite conclusions that can’t be reconciled with the record and defy any reasonable reading of it.

Today in pro se family appeals: a dissatisfied father objects the the Court of Appeals ruling that it's actually okay for your kid to go to Minneapolis public schools even if you have access to the vaunted Plymouth school district

Today's edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch will be delayed because I took a case over the weekend with a trial set for this morning. 44 hours notice!

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions: December 31, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinion released by the Minnesota Supreme Court on December 31, 2025. I'm celebrating the New Year with my family,* so this week's writeup...

Today's edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch is a bit abbreviated because of the holiday, and because my family is ravaged by this year's dreaded flu variant. Happy New Year!

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-su...

Ultimately, I think these cases will turn on the result of the Sela decision. But the timing of everything means that the tenants' attorney may need to basically re-argue Sela with a garnish of "what does the Duluth case have to do with this?"

The citation to the Duluth HRA case is a bit of a head-scratcher. In that case, the COA officially recognized the long-held practice of district courts using their inherent authority as grounds to expunge eviction records. It doesn't address the mandatory expungement provision at all.

Sela is the trick here. The Court of Appeals held, in a surprising decision, that a diff part of the mandatory expungement statute was unconstitutional because the legislature usurped the judiciary's authority to manage its own records. But that case may not be decided for the better part of a year.

On remand, the trial court pointed to the ongoing Sela case, which was recently argued at the MN Supreme Court. The nested threads below track the history of that case and includes my analysis of those oral arguments. The court also pointed to a case which authorized inherent authority expungements

9. The district court did not explain its reasoning for the decision to stay the orders beyond referencing the judgments. The district court also did not cite the authority—whether a precedential opinion, a statute, a rule, or its inherent authority— under which it exercised the power to issue a stay of the orders. As such, we are unable to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in staying the orders for expungement until the monetary judgments are satisfied. We, therefore, remand these cases for the district court to explain its reasoning for the stay and the authority under which it is ordering a stay. See State v. A.S.E., 835 N.W.2d 513, 517 (Minn. App. 2013) (reversing and remanding when reviewing court is unable to determine whether the district court abused its discretion based upon the record available); Archway Marketing Servs. v. County of Hennepin, 882 N.W.2d 890, 896 (Minn. 2016) (remanding for court “to more fully explain its reasoning”).

The Court of Appeals remanded saying "you have to provide some reasoning and authority for the proposition that you can override a statute which says 'this must be expunged.'"

The cases I discussed below are back up on appeal. The original round of consolidated cases concerned the district court denying a mandatory eviction expungement on grounds that there were money judgments for costs against the tenants. The expungement law doesn't address that.

It's a busy week, highlighted by my son's daycare being closed for 2 days in the middle, but if I have time I'd like to do a deeper dive RE: the decision on the St. Paul Rent Stabilization Ordinance. I previously provided some analysis of the City's arguments and the Court landed in a similar place.

Sentence of the Week The red Mustang pulled up next to J.J.’s driver’s-side window and stopped. The driver of the red Mustang, later identified as [Defendant], flashed a badge and said to J.J. and S.S., “In this state we drive 30 miles an hour,” and “the radar said you were going closer to 40.” J.J. asked [Defendant] if the red Mustang was an official police vehicle, and [Defendant] said, “It’s a detective vehicle.” Soon thereafter, [Defendant] drove away. . . . [Defendant] testified that he pulled up next to the white SUV in the Culver’s parking lot and told the driver that he had cut off multiple drivers, that he was “going fast,” at least “35, 40 miles an hour,” and that “in Minnesota, the speed limit’s 30.” Novak denied using the flashing lights on his vehicle, having radar in his vehicle, showing his NAPD [a self-founded organization] badge, and saying that he was a police officer. State v. Novak, pp. 2–3. I'm sorry, man, but this is the least believable testimony of all time. How is a jury supposed to believe that someone who drives a red Ford Mustang cares about driving the speed limit? You’re just not setting yourself up for success, my guy.

Speaking of that red Ford Mustang... I am not questioning the trial strategy of a public defender, because you play the cards you're dealt and judges can make even the best cases look dumb in writing. But the optics of a dude who drives a 'Stang allegedly caring about the speed limit? Yikes.

Most active jurist: Judge Michelle Larkin, with an astonishing five opinions, the highest since I began this endeavor. Notably, all five were criminal appeals, and four of the five were decided in less than 50 days from argument, 1.95 standard deviations faster than the average criminal opinion. A remarkable run for Judge Larkin and her staff.

Judge Larkin leads the way with 5 opinions this week, the highest since I started writing MACW. Huge week for her and her staff.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 29, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 29, 2025. The late hour of this missive comes courtesy of my literal and f...

It's another edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch. The week between Christmas and New Year's might be slow for most people, but the Court of Appeals keeps chugging along. 25 cases and, surprisingly, only one involves a dude driving a red Ford Mustang.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-co...

A Visit from St. Nicholas, Esq. Adapted from the original poem by Clement Clarke Moore ‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the Court Not a lawyer was stirring, not even a clerk; The draft opinions were submitted for citechecks with care, In hopes that wise rulings soon would be there; The counsel were nestled all snug in their beds; While outlines of arguments danced in their heads;

And by fun, well,,,, you know I had to do it to 'em

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions: December 24, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Supreme Court on December 24, 2025. We have two opinions this week, but my son's daycare is closed and ...

It's a holiday edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch! The Supreme Court issued two opinions today, but I'm off to spend Christmas Eve at the Zoo with my son. So I've provided capsules of the two decisions, as well as a bit of holiday fun.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-su...

The Bad Neighbor of the Week Award Minnesota is a state that prides itself on neighborly congeniality and generosity. This intermittent feature highlights times when those values go by the wayside and next-door enmity reaches the appellate dockets. For an area of law generally predominated by complex, technical analysis of state environmental law and local zoning codes, land use practice has some of the best drama. In the case of Miller v. City of White Bear Lake, a couple sued the city for granting variances to allow the folks next door to tear down their old single-story house on the lake and build a new one that was 1.34 feet wider. Nobody beefs like lake neighbors! As the COA points out, a 34-to-38-foot-wide lot with 15-foot setbacks means there are only 4 to 8 feet of space to legally build without a variance, and the minimum house width is 22 feet. Some kind of variance was going to be needed. I just don’t think going from 3.2 to 3.36 feet on the left side of the lot and 7.5 to 6 on the right was the hill to die on. But maybe that’s the kind of attitude that prevents me from owning a lake house.

For all my land use sickos: imagine a property that's 38 feet wide at max, with 15 foot setbacks. Now imagine the most antagonistic neighbors possible.

Case Name of the Week Kellogg v. Freund This case name is one letter off from being an all-time freaky dude showdown. If you want an interesting and terrible time, I suggest learning about the various beliefs of John Harvey Kellogg, the inventor of Corn Flakes. As for Sigmund Freud, perhaps the most normal thing about him is that his American fame originated in Worcester, Massachusetts. And I can say that, because my American fame (now useless undergraduate degree) originated in Worcester.

Editorial lore: I attended an undergraduate institution in Worcester and would lead a goofy statue walking tour for my out-of-town friends. The Freud statute on the Clark University campus was always a hit. At least it was less confusing than the Turtle Boy

Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 22, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 22, 2025. My apologies for the late hour of this week’s post. My associate...

In just under the wire: today's Court of Appeals decision. A busy week with 27 opinions, two new Judges, and returning co-champion for most active jurist.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-co...

Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review in State v. Fohrenkam. This likely puts in the nail in the coffin, excluding the defendant's custodial interview from evidence

This case charges the defendant with killing Deshaun Hill Jr. in 2022. The second trial is scheduled for February

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions: December 17, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the single opinion released by the Minnesota Supreme Court on December 17, 2025. All we have is one attorney discipline matter; no other decis...

A light week at the Minnesota Supreme Court: one attorney discipline matter, with PFR orders due later today (will cover next week).

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-su...

The case is In re MNGI Digestive Health, P.A., No. A25-2114, appeal filed December 15, 2025.

Decision being appealed: drive.google.com/file/d/1ME8t...

14. Scheffler’s primary objection concerns Class Counsel’s alleged lack of zealous advocacy and alleged inflated attorney fee request. Based on the Court’s awareness of this file, the Court soundly rejects the assertion that Class Counsel did not zealously advocate for their clients. The attorneys comprising Class Counsel are extremely experienced and knowledgeable in class-action litigation, and the Court finds that their ability to negotiate a potential settlement on behalf of such a large class in a relatively short amount of time is a testament to their hard work and dedication to this case. The Court also dismisses the ad hominem remarks directed towards attorney Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. and gives them no weight given the inappropriate nature of Scheffler’s criticism towards her. Ms. Weiner filed a Declaration on September 4, 2025, as noted by Class Counsel (Christopher Renz) at the hearing. The Court has reviewed and considered Ms. Weiner’s Declaration. The Weiner Declaration confirms the significant breadth and experience of Weiner as well as other Pearson Warshaw LLP attorneys involved in representation of the Class in complex class-action litigation; importantly, the Weiner Declaration also lists other class-action cases throughout the country in which courts have approved attorney fee requests by Pearson Warshaw LLP at hourly rates identical or similar to those utilized in this case.1 (Weiner Decl. at 7-9). Finally, the Weiner Declaration notes the significant involvement by Weiner in the broader legal community and bar association to 7 enhance access to justice. Id. at 2. Once again, Scheffler’s personal attacks on Weiner and her colleagues are misplaced and entirely inappropriate.

16. The Court’s overall impression of Scheffler’s objections is that to a large extent, his concerns go well beyond this proposed Settlement and instead appear directed at class action settlements in general, and attorney fees to class action lawyers in particular. To the extent Scheffler is concerned about this case, he appears unusually concerned regarding Class Counsel and/or the efforts of the attorneys on behalf of the class. Given the impressive resumes and considerable experience of Class Counsel in complex litigation such as this case, as well as the significant amount of work (measured in the equivalent of over 1,000 hours of billable attorney time and results achieved) that Class Counsel put into this case, Scheffler’s concerns are largely unfounded. With regard to Scheffler’s complaint that his email inquiry regarding the identity of lead class counsel went largely unanswered, his complaint is belied by the reality that if he truly wanted to know details regarding Class Counsel, all he had to do was consult the Settlement website (www.mngisettlement.com), where under the “Documents” tab he would be able to locate court filings and/or pleadings which readily identified Class Counsel; under the “FAQ” tab and the question “Do I have a lawyer in the lawsuit?” the answer lists the names of each of the Class Counsel and their respective law firms.

17. The Court also considered Scheffler’s Supplemental Objection filed on September 17, 2025. Scheffler continues to argue that the entire proposed settlement is a “scam” that does not provide benefits to the Class, Ms. Weiner’s Declaration shows a lack of zealous representation, and Class Counsel could not explain the benefits to the Class of the proposed settlement. The Court need not repeat all of the analysis above as to Scheffler’s primary objections.2 However, the Court finds it important to emphasize the following: a. The proposed settlement is not a “scam.” The settlement provides tangible benefits to the Class, including increased security measures by Defendant, compensation of up to $10,000 for out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the data incident, two years of Medical Monitoring and a pro rata cash payment of remaining funds.

19. The Court finds no compelling evidence that the Medical Monitoring relief provided by the Settlement is a “sham” or “scam” and the Court firmly rejects Scheffler’s invitation to find that this case is some sort of “mockery.” As will be set forth in more explicit findings below, the Court instead will find that the Settlement is fair and reasonable, and that it provides appropriate measures of relief for the incident which took place. Rather than criticize Class Counsel, which appeared to be a primary objective of Scheffler, the Court lauds the significant amount of high-quality legal work (over 1,000 hours) which was exerted by Class Counsel in a relatively short period of time to achieve a fair resolution for the Class.

As a former class-action attorney who liked drafting settlement motions, I want to personally thank the Hennepin County District Court for coming to the staunch defense of complex litigators when cranky class objectors arrive at their door.

Yes, the objector is appealing approval of the settlement.

State v. Boyd, No. A24-0035 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025). Criminal Appeal from Carlton County District Court (09-CR-22-339) Opinion, Worke (Johnson dissenting) Reversing and remanding convictions for first-degree possession and obstruction of process on grounds that the triggering condition of an anticipatory search warrant wasn’t met because the warrant only allowed arrest when the defendant was “traveling to Cloquet” and law enforcement stopped him “before any of the I-35 exits leading to Cloquet” leaving them without “a substantial basis to infer [he] was destined for Cloquet.” The dissent argues that the defendant “plainly was traveling ‘towards Cloquet” because he was traveling on I-35 towards the exits most likely used to reach Cloquet The COA notes that there is no precedential caselaw on the use of anticipatory warrants. I don't know if this is a good case for the Supreme Court to weigh in on, mostly because it came down to interpretation of the text of the warrant and not any matters underlying the warrant, but rare are the criminal issues with no Supreme Court input so a grant of review wouldn't be surprising.

Of note, the COA reversed a conviction based evidence gained from an anticipatory warrant, holding that the condition for arrest was not met because traveling on I-35 alone does not mean the defendant was going "towards Cloquet." The MN Supreme Court has never addressed anticipatory warrants.

While Deputy K. accompanied Tanna to the back of the car, he “noticed several items sticking out of [Tanna’s] pocket, including a clear plastic bag.” When the deputy asked about the plastic bag, Tanna indicated it was marijuana . . . . Tanna then attempted to run around the passenger side of the car and away from Deputy K. Deputy M. stepped in and grabbed Tanna, who “tense[d] up” and “attempted to bring his . . . right hand up.” As Deputy M. and Tanna continued to struggle, Deputy K. saw Tanna put a small plastic bag in his mouth and noticed that the bag “was fully into his mouth and there was chewing going on and that white substance or crystal substance was falling from his mouth.” Both deputies attempted to pull the item from Tanna’s mouth while he was pressed against the car. Deputy M. also saw Tanna “chewing” with “stuff falling out that was white” that the deputy believed was methamphetamine. Tanna was taken to the ground but continued resisting and “start[ed] spitting.” At some point during the struggle, the small plastic bag came out of Tanna’s mouth. Eventually, the officers were able to handcuff Tanna after one officer threatened to use a taser.

State v. Tanna leads us to add a rule to our list:

Rule # 2 of destroying evidence: If you’re going to try to eat the methamphetamine in your possession during your arrest, make sure you succeed in eating enough to avoid the weight necessary for a first-degree possession charge.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 15, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 15, 2025. It’s a grim week on the docket. Two murders, four terminations o...

It's another edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch, this time covering the Court of Appeals opinions released December 15, 2025.

With two murders and four terminations of parental rights, it's not the cheeriest week on the docket. But! There's meth-eating

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-co...

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions: December 10, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Supreme Court on December 10, 2025. This week we have two decisions. First, a statutory interpretation ...

Minnesota Appellate Court Watch returns for today's releases from the MN Supreme Court. We have two opinions. First, a statutory interpretation decision officially recognizing a new attempted assault offense. Second, my stab at writing about attorney discipline.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-su...

Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 8, 2025 Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 8, 2025. It’s a snowy day here in Minneapolis, a great time to curl up wit...

It's another Monday edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch, covering this week's Court of Appeals opinions. This time around we have Delaware LLC on Delaware LLC violence, the rare motion to dismiss in a divorce case, and an interesting admin law ruling.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-co...