Court of Appeals Digest: Jan. 14.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Corporations

Buy-Outs

Appellants challenged the District Court's grant of a buy-out of respondent's business interests, valuation of the interests, removal of a trustee and denial of appellant trustees' motion for attorney fees and costs. By cross-appeal, respondent/cross-appellant challenged the District Court's grant of summary judgment on her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against appellant trustees, denial of her request to remove a second trustee and determination of the valuation date for the buy-out of her interests.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) if there is no genuine issue of material fact that unfairly prejudicial conduct occurred, a District Court may, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, exercise its equitable authority to grant a buy-out under Minn. Stat. 302A.751, 322B.833; and (2) Minn. Stat. 501C.0709, as supplemented by the common law, governs a trustee's entitlement to reimbursement out of trust property for attorney fees and expenses incurred in administration of the trust. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0120 Lund v. Lund (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180120-011419.pdf

Experts

Generally Accepted

Appellants brought product-liability actions in state and federal courts, alleging that respondent's forced-air warming device (FAWD) used to maintain patients' normal body temperature during surgery increased the risk of surgical-site infection (SSI). Each party moved to exclude the other party's experts; appellants moved to add a claim for punitive damages; and respondent moved for summary judgment with respect to general causation. The District Court granted respondent's motions and denied appellants' motions. Appellants challenged these decisions.

The Court of Appeals held that, to determine whether the general-acceptance standard of Minn. R. Evid. 702 has been met, a court relies on evidence of the relevant scientific community's acceptance or nonacceptance of the novel scientific theory. The Court deferred to the assessment of the relevant scientific community rejecting appellants' novel scientific theory and concluded that there was no demonstrated causal relationship between FAWDs and increased risk of SSI, and affirmed the District Court's decision to exclude appellants' experts' evidence. Affirmed.

A18-0473 In re 3M Bair Hugger Litigation (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180473-011419.pdf

Municipalities

Charter Amendments

Appellant challenged the District Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his petition under Minn. Stat. 204B.44 to correct alleged errors, omissions, or wrongful acts by respondent city in rejecting appellant's petition under Minn. Stat. 410.12 to amend the city charter.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) election officials of a home rule charter city do not err in relying on the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) to determine whether a petition to amend the charter of a home rule city contains the requisite number of signatures of registered voters in a city; (2) when a petition under Minn. Stat. 204B.44 alleges that election officials committed an error, omission, or wrongful act in determining that a petition to amend a home rule city charter under Minn. Stat. 410.12 is inadequate for failure to contain the requisite number of signatures of registered voters, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of an error, omission, or wrongful act; and (3) in order to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning an error, omission, or wrongful act by election officials who rely on the SVRS, the petitioner must present the District Court with admissible evidence contrary to the relied-on SVRS record. Affirmed.

A18-0655 Butler v. City of St. Paul (Ramsey County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180473-011419.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Breach of Contract

Conditions Precedent

In this appeal of the District Court's grant of summary judgment, appellant construction company argued that the District Court erred by (1) finding that appellant failed to satisfy its contractual-conditions precedent and (2) enforcing the liquidated-damages provisions contained in its contract with respondent county. The Court of Appeals noted that whether a letter constituted an engineer's final written response, triggering the two contractual conditions precedent, was a fact that is in dispute. The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Reversed and remanded.

A18-0515 Lunda Constr. Co. v. County of Anoka (Anoka County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180515-011419.pdf

Civil Commitment

Discharge

Appellant is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person. In 2016, he was granted a provisional discharge. But his provisional discharge was revoked in 2017 after he violated its conditions. Shortly thereafter, he petitioned the special review board for a "restructuring" of his provisional discharge. The special review board recommended that his petition be denied. He requested rehearing and reconsideration by the judicial appeal panel. After a first-phase evidentiary hearing, the judicial appeal panel granted a motion to dismiss his petition. The Court of Appeals concluded that the judicial appeal panel did not err because appellant did not produce evidence during the first-phase hearing that was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that he was entitled to provisional discharge. Affirmed.

A18-1212 In re Civil Commitment of Dority (Judicial Appeal Panel)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181212-011419.pdf

Civil Commitment

Discharge

After the judicial appeal panel granted appellant's request for provisional discharge from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the Commissioner of Human Services appealed, arguing that she had met her burden of offering clear and convincing opposing evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the panel rendered insufficient factual findings, noting that it recited the evidence but failed to say whether it was credible or why, if it was credible, the panel's decision contradicted it. Affirmed.

A18-1191 In re Civil Commitment of Kerkhoff (Judicial Appeal Panel)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181191-011419.pdf

Civil Commitment

SDP & SPP; Sufficiency of the Evidence

On appeal from his civil commitment, appellant raised two challenges. First, he contended that his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient. Second, he argued that the District Court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Noting that it viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the District Court's decision, and expert...