Court of Appeals Digest: March 4.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Published

Employment

Municipal Regulation

This appeal concerned a City of Minneapolis ordinance regulating the minimum wage employers must pay their employees for time worked within the geographic boundaries of the city. Appellant sued respondent city, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was preempted by state law and a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. After a court trial, the District Court concluded that the ordinance was not preempted by state law, declared the ordinance valid and enforceable, and denied a permanent injunction.

The Court of Appeals held that a municipal ordinance does not conflict with, and is not impliedly preempted by, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA) merely by setting a higher minimum wage than that required by state law. Affirmed.

A18-0593 Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/opa180593-030419.pdf

Zoning

Nonconforming Uses

Appellant-landowner challenged the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent-city in its action seeking declaration that appellant was entitled to deposit waste generated from operations other than a paper mill into a landfill. The Court of Appeals held that a landowner seeking to continue a prior permitted nonconforming use of property is bound by the uses allowed under the terms of the land-use permit in effect at the time of the property transfer to the landowner. Affirmed.

A18-0443 AIM Dev. (USA), LLC v. City of Sartell (Stearns County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180443-030419.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Account Stated

Debtor-Creditor Relationship

Appellant real-estate-investment company challenged the District Court's determination that it owed respondent advertising agency damages under claim for account stated, arguing that a prior debtor-creditor relationship between them did not exist. The Court of Appeals held that, when an employee signed a contract with respondent and was authorized to do so by appellant's CEO, he lawfully bound appellant to the contract, establishing a debtor-creditor relationship. Affirmed.

A18-0595 Linnihan Foy Advertising, LLC v. Talon Real Estate Holdings Corp. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180595-030419.pdf

Breach of Contract

Pleading

In this dispute arising out of respondent's provision of calling center services to appellant, appellant argued that the District Court erred in dismissing its claim for breach of contract pertaining to respondent's use of a Canadian call center. Appellant also argued that the District Court erred in granting respondent summary judgment on the parties' cross-claims for breach of contract relating to respondent's termination of services due to nonpayment. By notice of related appeal, respondent argued that the District Court erred in awarding it interest at a rate lower than that provided by the parties' contract. The Court of Appeals concluded that dismissal of the claim was improper, noting that, although the contract allowed for the use of a Canadian facility for overflow services, appellant could certainly introduce facts that supported the contention that respondent breached the agreement by using its Canadian call center as the primary facility and the Minnesota call center as backup, contrary to the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, summary judgment was reversed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0355 Appliance Recycling Ctrs of Am., Inc. v. Skybridge Ams, Inc. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/opa180355-030419.pdf

Civil Commitment

Records

Appellant, a patient in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, challenged the District Court's dismissal of his claims under the Minnesota Health Records Act and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, alleging that his address verification form for registering as a predatory offender was improperly disseminated to MSOP patients and employees. The Court of Appeals held that the MHRA claim was deficient because the form was not a "health record," and appellant's MGDPA claims failed because he did not sufficiently plead "any damage." Affirmed.

A18-1120 Rhoades v. Lourey (Carlton County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181120-030419.pdf

Civil Commitment

SDP; Discharge

Appellant was convicted five times for sexually assaulting boys over the course of 17 years. The District Court civilly committed appellant indeterminately as a sexually dangerous person in 2000, and he has refused to participate in treatment since 2001. A judicial appeal panel declined to hold a phase-two hearing on appellant's recent petition for discharge from commitment. Noting that the only report appellant presented contained a determination that he continues to pose a danger to the public and to need inpatient treatment and supervision, the Court of Appeals concluded that appellant presented insufficient evidence to warrant a hearing. Affirmed.

A18-1521 In re Civil Commitment of Robb (Judicial Appeal Panel)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181521-030419.pdf

Civil Commitment

SPP; Discharge

Appellant challenged a judicial appeal panel's dismissal of his petition for provisional discharge from the Minnesota Sex Offenders Program as a Sexual Psychopathic Personality and argued that the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act violates his due-process rights. The Court of Appeals noted that appellant's grievances with the treatment program did not support a prima facie showing that he no longer needed treatment and supervision at the MSOP. Affirmed.

A18-1367 In re Civil Commitment of Stone (Supreme Court Appeal Panel)

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT