Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 15, 2025

Daniel Suitor

15 Dec 2025 — 12 min read

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 of parental rights, and the conviction of a guy who failed to eat enough of the meth on him to preventing a finding of the weight necessary for first-degree possession. Here’s hoping your holiday season is merry and bright as we turn to the docket.

This newsletter contains the sole opinions of me, Daniel Suitor. You can reach me via email at opinions[at]minnappct[dot]watch. As always, everything contained here is solely for informational purposes, and is not legal advice. This newsletter is not a solicitation for my services. If you have a legal issue, you should contact your local public defender’s office, legal aid provider, or a private attorney.

Overview

26 Opinions

16 Civil
9 Criminal
1 Certiorari
2 precedential
22 nonprecedential
2 order opinion
19 affirmed
5 affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
2 reversed (1 remanded)

Decisions average 307 days from filing, 72 since argument.

Civil: 239 / 69
Criminal: 429 / 77
Precedential: 241 / 86
Nonprecedential 321 / 73
Order opinions: 216 / 48

* Of note, the length of time from filing to decision for nonprecedential and criminal decisions is skewed by a 710-day wait in State v. Boyd and 826-day wait in State v. Quitter. Those cases were stayed to allow for petitions for postconviction relief before proceeding on direct appeal. Without including those two, the time to decision drops to 277 days for nonprecedential decisions and 322 days for criminal decisions.

Most active jurist: This week we have a tie between Judges Elizabeth Bentley and Renee Worke, with three opinions apiece.

Case Name of the Week

State v. Quitter

Quitting is an act that has been memorialized in two of my favorite pieces of culture. The first is one of the earliest episodes of This American Life, appropriately entitled “Quitting,” which I listened to about 15 years ago during one of my lowest points in college. To this day, I find it quite moving. The second is a meme from Da Share Zone, an anti-comedy transmission from a better age of the Internet, which urges the reader to “Just walk out” because “you can leave” and “if it sucks... hit da bricks” because "real winners quit."

The facts of this case are very serious and no laughing matter. I do not mean to dimmish the impact of the case to the defendant or the victim, but State v. Quitter sounds like someone is being unfairly prosecuted for the righteous act of hitting da bricks.

Sentence of the Week

Cue the Benny Hill music:

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, at 2–3.

As someone with lots of experience pulling things out of the mouths of dogs and a toddler, this was all too real for me. And thanks to this case, we’ve added a new rule to our running list of The Rules of Law:

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.

Precedential Opinions

Thormodson v. Zehnder, No. A25-0429 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil
Appeal from Watonwan County District Court (83-CV-24-80)
Opinion, Cochran
Ruling that Minnesota’s laws governing the reporting of maltreatment of minors (1) extend statutory immunity to mandated reporters who report in good faith even if the report is not made immediately, (2) extends statutory immunity to voluntary reporters who report in good faith regardless of whether they are also a mandatory reporter, and (3) that good faith “is established if the report is made without an ulterior motive, without malice, and for a proper purpose”

In re Civil Commitment of Urbanek, No. A25-0808 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Civil Commitment
Appeal from Otter Tail County District Court (56-P7-04-001142)
Opinion, Harris
Ruling that (1) the subject of an indeterminate civil commitment petition does not have a constitutional right to self-representation in initial proceedings, and (2) the statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil-commitment proceedings is not subject to a structural-error analysis

Nonprecedential Opinions

State v. Byker, No. A25-0499 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal
Appeal from Sherburne County District Court (71-CR-21-409)
Opinion, Frisch
Affirming convictions for first-degree possession and fleeing police on grounds that the defendant was not denied his right to counsel where he did not qualify for a public defender and never hired an attorney despite the case pending for over three years, with the court holding at least eight omnibus hearings, eight pretrial hearings, setting the case for trial four times, and continuing the case three times specifically for the purpose of defendant retaining counsel

Hager v. Schroepfer, No. A25-0714 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Estates and Trusts
Appeal from Nicollet County District Court (52-CV-22-390)
Opinion, Worke
Affirming a trial order declining to remove a trustee at the behest of a son who owes $900,000 to his father’s trust on grounds that the trustee met his duties of prudence, impartiality, and duty to inform with regard to the administration of the trust and the sale of certain farm property

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.

Harvey v. Dudley, No. A25-0454 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Personal Injury
Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-23-10923)
Opinion, Ross
Affirming the denial of summary judgment for a defendant high school wrestling referee, in a case concerning a student athlete first cleared to play but then diagnosed with a concussion, because he argued a different theory on appeal than below, but reversing the denial of summary judgment for the coach and school district on official immunity grounds

Holm-Kolodiazhna ex rel. Minor Child v. Gordy, No. A25-0619 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Protective Order
Appeal from Becker County District Court (03-FA-25-309)
Opinion, Johnson
Reversing the grant of an Order for Protection for a child against her father because the facts in the record do not support a conclusion that the father engaged in domestic abuse against the child, or in some cases that the child even witnessed some of the alleged conduct in question

In re Estate of Jaenisch, No. A25-0315 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Estates and Trusts
Appeal from Chippewa County District Court (12-PR-24-74, 12-PR-24-75)
Opinion, Johnson
Affirming the denial of a petition to establish the decedents’ homestead rights over a property, where the estates are subject to claims for Medical Assistance which would extinguish the value of the property without a homestead exemption, on grounds that there is no evidence the relevant decedent was subject to a legal disability preventing a filing of notice of homestead rights

State v. Luhring, No. A25-0710 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal: Restoration of Firearm Rights
Appeal from Blue Earth County District Court (07-CR-08-3255)
Opinion, Bjorkman
Affirming the denial of a petition to restore firearm rights on grounds that the petitioner’s misdemeanor offense barring possession does not fall under the scope of the restoration of rights provisions in Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1d, which addresses only felony offenses

Olson v. Freeman, No. A25-0439 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Personal Injury
Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-23-2429)
Opinion, Bjorkman
Affirming the dismissal of a complaint against the University of Minnesota, a fraternity, and fraternity officers and agents, based on an injury suffered by someone hit by a car driven by an allegedly intoxicated person below the legal age allegedly served at a fraternity party, after remand from the Court of Appeals for consideration of social-host liability, on grounds that (1) releasing fraternity personnel from liability released vicarious liability claims against the fraternity LLC, and (2) the LLC is not a natural person as required by the social-host statute

In re Welfare of the Children of C.H.G. and R.R.G., No. A25-0966 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Parental Rights / Child Protection
Appeal from Clay County District Court (14-JV-25-311)
Opinion, Reyes
Affirming the termination of parental rights on grounds that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family and termination of rights is in the best interests of the children

State v. Bauer, No. A25-0085 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal
Appeal from Sibley County District Court (72-CR-23-80)
Opinion, Bratvold
Affirming a conviction for second-degree intentional murder on grounds that (1) the circumstantial evidence supports conviction for the defendant’s execution-style shooting of his farming partner, and (2) failure to strike a juror for cause thus requiring a peremptory strike did not deprive defendant of a fail trial, (3) failure to hold a hearing concerning juror misconduct was not an abusive of discretion, (4) the admission of certain evidence including financial distress and the defendant’s position to financially benefit from the victim’s death was not an abuse of discretion and improperly admitted evidence of prior bad acts was harmless, (5) the prosecutor’s misconduct during closing arguments, asking jurors to put themselves in the defendant’s shoes, did not prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial, (6) there was not cumulative error requiring a new trial, and (7) a top-of-the-box sentence of around 30.5 years was not an abuse of discretion

In re Welfare of the Child(ren) of B.L. and R.O.S., No. A25-1081 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Parental Rights / Child Protection
Appeal from Lincoln County District Court (41-JV-25-1)
Opinion, Slieter
Affirming the termination of the mother’s rights, but reversing the termination of the father’s rights on grounds that the county did not make reasonable reunifications efforts with the father on grounds that it did not provide services tailored to the individualized needs of the family

State v. Olson, No. A24-1804 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal
Appeal from Blue Earth County District Court (07-CR-23-3100)
Opinion, Slieter
Affirming convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, first-degree assault, and violation of a domestic-abuse-no-contact order, on grounds that the district court was within its discretion to deny a continuance and deny a request to sequester the lead investigator, but reversing to resentence for six months fewer on the DANCO count

Menier ex rel. Menier v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. A25-0618 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Personal Injury
Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-22-12944)
Opinion, Wheelock
Affirming the grant of summary judgment to an insurer on grounds that the reasonable-expectations doctrine did not apply to a $1 million underinsurance provision subject to reduction by payments by responsible parties where the policy was unambiguous and the reduction clause was not obscure and unexpected

In re Teaching License of Andrade, No. A25-0301 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Certiorari: Professional Licensing
On writ of certiorari from the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (No. 412937)
Opinion, Larson
Affirming the six-year suspension of a teaching license, where the teacher had physical incidents with a kindergartner and fifth graders, on grounds that the contested case hearing did not violate the teacher’s right to due process or use unlawful procedure, the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the decision was not arbitrary and capricious

State v. Itoka, No. A25-0032 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal: Sentencing
Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CR-23-26458)
Opinion, Larson
Affirming the imposition of presumptive sentences for first-degree and fourth-degree assault, stemming from a stabbing and subsequent resisting arrest, on grounds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding probation inappropriate because of the defendant’s conduct during the arrest, inability to fully appreciate the serious of the offense, and failure to stay law-abiding

State v. Quitter, No. A23-1348 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal
Appeal from Pine County District Court (58-CR-22-740)
Opinion, Ede
Affirming (1) convictions for second-degree intentional and unintentional murder, among others, against challenges concerning admission of certain evidence, jury instructions on the duty to retreat, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, and (2) the denial of postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel, but reversing and remanding for further proceedings because of an insufficient record on the applicability of a marijuana sentence used to calculate the defendant’s criminal-history score under Minnesota’s reforms to cannabis laws

In re Welfare of the Child of K.M.S. and J.J.S., No. A25-0988 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Parental Rights / Child Protection
Appeal from Chisago County District Court (13-JV-25-27)
Opinion, Bentley
Affirming the termination of a father’s parental rights on grounds that the county (1) established a statutory basis for termination, (2) made reasonable efforts to provide visitation, rehabilitate the father, and reunify the family, and (3) termination is in the best interests of the child

Rosario v. Villanueva, No. A25-0655 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Protective Order
Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-DA-FA-24-6122)
Opinion, Bentley
Affirming (1) the issuance of an Order for Protection on grounds that the district court’s findings and evidentiary decisions were not an abuse of discretion and that the evidence was sufficient to meet the burden of proof, (2) denials of motions to vacate on grounds that certain police reports were not newly discovered evidence or otherwise relevant, and (3) holding the referee was not biased and the defendant received a fair hearing

State v. Tanna, No. A24-1676 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal
Appeal from McLeod County District Court (43-CR-24-350)
Opinion, Bentley
Affirming a conviction for first-degree possession, in a case where the defendant tried to ingest the methamphetamine during his arrest, on grounds that (1) the State met its burden of proof on the weight of the drugs in question, (2) a constructive-possession jury instruction was not plain error, and (3) the admission into evidence of a warrant to search the defendant’s car was not an abuse of discretion

In re Welfare of the Child(ren) of J.L.C.R. and M.A.C.P., No. A25-0981 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Parental Rights / Child Protection
Appeal from Otter Tail County District Court (56-JV-24-2989)
Opinion, Bond
Affirming the termination of a mother’s parental rights on grounds that the county (1) established a statutory basis for termination, (2) made reasonable efforts to provide to reunify the family, (3) termination is in the best interests of the child, and (4) the mother did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel

Kuchera v. Biebighauser, No. A24-1742 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Civil: Family
Appeal from Dakota County District Court (19AV-FA-10-4037)
Opinion, Bond
Affirming a motion granting a father sole legal custody of a child over medical and mental-health matters on grounds that (1) it was not error for the district court to decline to appoint a guardian ad litem, (2) the court did not err when it found the mother coached the child’s testimony concerning her desire to live with her mother

State v. Cox, No. A25-0011 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

Criminal
Appeal from Washington County District Court (82-CR-23-483)
Opinion, Smith
Affirming a conviction for third-degree assault, concerning an incident between inmates in a correctional facility, against a challenge concerning the admission of an unsigned letter discussing the incident, and pro se challenges concerning the destruction of some security footage and the admission of other security footage

Order Opinions

Clerk v. Avivo Village, No. A25-0673 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

Civil
Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-25-5360)
Opinion, Worke
Affirming the district court’s order denying a fee waiver after finding the action frivolous because the appellant only addressed financial eligibility on appeal, not the frivolity argument under Nelson v. Arroyo Ins. Servs., Inc., 23 N.W.3d 415 (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)

Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services, No. A25-0831 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2025).

Civil: Parental Rights / Child Protection
Appeal from Scott County District Court (70-CV-22-7318)
Opinion, Smith
Affirming the district court’s order, after remand from the Supreme Court, dismissing an appeal of the Department of Human Service’s ““no maltreatment of a child”“ finding because the county did not waive its subject-matter jurisdiction defense based on the limitations period to serve adverse parties and the plaintiff did not comply with the limitations period

Miscellanea

Banner image courtesy of the inestimable Tony Webster.

Out of candor to readers, my standing disclosures and conflicts are listed at the bottom of this page. I will disclose if I have worked on a case in a formal capacity, had any informal contacts with the case, or have personal connections to the case. I do this because I think transparency about my background helps readers judge my writing properly.