Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 8, 2025

Daniel Suitor

Daniel Suitor

— 7 min read
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 with a cup of cocoa and the latest opinions from the COA. This week, we have Delaware LLC on Delaware LLC violence, the rare motion to dismiss in a divorce case, and an order forcing an administrative board to decide a discrimination appeal. So grab your coziest throw blanket and a few more mini marshmallows, let’s get to the docket.

This newsletter contains the sole opinions of me, Daniel Suitor. As always, everything contained here is solely for informational purposes and is not legal advice. If you have a legal issue, you should contact your local public defender’s office, legal aid provider, or a private attorney.

Overview

# Opinions

  • 8 Civil

  • 7 Criminal

  • 1 Certiorari

  • 1 precedential

  • 13 nonprecedential

  • 2 order opinion

  • 11 affirmed

  • 3 affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

  • 2 reversed and remanded

Decisions average # days from filing, # since argument.

  • Civil: 244 / 56

  • Criminal: 364 / 79

  • Certiorari: 264 / 68

  • Precedential: 182 / 41

  • Nonprecedential 324 / 72*

  • Order opinions: 184 / 45

* Of note, the outlier length of time since filing to decision for nonprecedential decisions is skewed by a 615-day wait in State v. Krutchek. That case was stayed for 10 months to allow the appellant to pursue a petition for postconviction relief related to their ineffective assistance of counsel claims before proceeding on their direct appeal. Without including Krutchek, the time to decision drops to 300 days, about 50% closer to the current running average.

Most active jurist: Judge Jon Schmidt (3 opinions)

Case Name of the Week

Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Appellant, vs. Mesabi Metallics Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

You just love to see attorneys from two national, AmLaw 200 firms schlep out to Itasca County to fight about arbitration procedure related to a mining lease. Is that what corporate counsel imagined when they drew up the papers? It's so sad to see two business forum maximizing entities fight like this. It calls Shakespeare to mind:

Two Delaware LLCs, both alike in ignominy,
In fair Itasca, where we lay our scene
From lease dispute defer to arbitral authority

Of note, the appellant in this case tried to argue that Minnesota’s arbitration statutes applied instead of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the COA said “Look, if you want to be Delaware LLCs operating in multiple states and leasing land for the mining of taconite for release into interstate commerce, you’re going to be subject to the federal scheme.” Live by overly complicated legal and business structures, die by those structures. I’m passionately anti-arbitration when it comes to consumers, but the second-largest steel producer in the country (represented by Jones Day) just got got because their own arbitrators said they didn’t ask for arb in time, and that’s an objectively hilarious result. This will be my “if-by-whisky” speech.

Sentence of the Week

The Board directed the parties to submit memoranda on the issue of whether it  had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  Both parties agreed that the Board was statutorily required to hear the appeal.

In February 2025, the Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. - Blissenbach, page 3.

I too would cut my own leg off to avoid having to decide discrimination cases stemming from return-to-office orders issued in May 2020, but the statute seemed pretty clear on this one. And both parties agreed that there was jurisdiction! The Occupational Safety and Health Review Board’s reasoning for refusing to hear the case seems to be “Well yes, the statute says we have to hear all appeals from an ALJ, but it doesn’t say we have to hear discrimination appeals.” Blissenbach, page 6. I honestly respect that hustle.

Precedential Opinions

In re Welfare of the Child(ren) of L. A. B. and C. R. L., No. A25-0952 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Civil: Parental Rights
  • Appeal from Redwood County District Court (64-JV-19-61)
  • Opinion, Harris
  • Ruling that juvenile courts do not have the statutory authority to decide child support issues, thus affirming the district court's transfer of permanent custody to one parent but reversing its child support modification

Nonprecedential Opinions

State v. Danberry, No. A25-0925 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal: Sentencing
  • Appeal from Blue Earth County District Court (07-CR-18-886)
  • Opinion, Connolly
  • Reversing the imposition of a 712-month aggregated sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct as excessive in comparison to sentences in comparable cases and remanding for the imposition of a 504-month sentence (59 years to 42 years)

Blissenbach v. Quotable Kids Pediatric Therapy Clinic, PLLP, No. A25-0445 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Certiorari: MN OSHA
  • Writ of Certiorari from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry's Occupational Safety and Health Review Board (OAH 22-1901-38929)
  • Opinion, Connolly
  • Reversing the dismissal of an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Review Board on grounds that the Board does have statutory jurisdiction over discrimination cases filed with the Department of Labor and Industry

Mueller v. State, No. A25-0564
(Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Appeal from Goodhue County District Court (25-CR-11-1377, 25-CR-11-3205)
  • Opinion, Reyes
  • Affirming the denial of a pro se post-trial motion where, even though the district court erred by treating a motion for corrected sentence as a petition for postconviction relief, the corrected sentence motion did not state a basis for relief

State v. Haywood, No. A24-1840 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Olmsted County District Court (55-CR-21-7426)
  • Opinion, Bratvold
  • Affirming a conviction for first first-degree assault, where it was not error to exclude expert testimony on “the general characteristics of false confessions” and declining to reopen the omnibus hearing because of late disclosure of bodycam footage, but sua sponte reversing a conviction for second-degree assault as a lesser-included offense

State v. Stennis, No. A24-1817 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Ramsey County District Court (62-CR-23-5650)
  • Opinion, Cochran
  • Affirming a conviction for driving after cancellation of a license as inimical to public safety on grounds that a police officer running the plate number of a car parked in a parking lot “based solely on a whim” did not violate the Fourth Amendment or any right to privacy

Yang v. Azotic, LLC, No. A25-0187, (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Olmsted County District Court (55-CV-24-3459)
  • Opinion, Slieter
  • Affirming the denial of indemnification for expenses incurred in obtaining an advancement order on grounds that indemnification is premature because the underlying matter in which advancement was ordered is still ongoing

Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development LLC v. Mesabi Metallics Company LLC, No. A25-0373 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Itasca County District Court (31-CV-23-2072)
  • Opinion, Larson
  • Affirming an arbitration award terminating a 50-year mining lease where the lessee failed to make a timely demand for arbitration

Hellerud-Schuth v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A25-0636 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Civil: Implied Consent
  • Appeal from Carver County District Court (10-CV-24-1415)
  • Opinion, Schmidt
  • Affirming an order sustaining the revocation of a driver's license where the district court did not commit clear error in relying on an officer's testimony that the driver attempted to turn off the road and immediately veered back on, endangering a motorcyclist, where the squad car video corroborated all of the officer's testimony except that the motorcyclist had to “swerve” to avoid the car

Rutzke King v. King, No. A25-0612 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Rice County District Court (66-FA-24-2475)
  • Opinion, Schmidt
  • Affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss in a dissolution case on grounds that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction because the wife is a resident of and domiciled in Minnesota, and that Minnesota's courts would not be a forum non conveniens for the Texas-based husband

State v. Saarela, No. A24-1894 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CR-23-10059)
  • Opinion, Ede
  • Affirming convictions for second-degree assault, domestic assault, threats of violence, and violation of a no-contact order related to a dispute over a tow truck (and subsequent low-speed ramming of the truck) on various grounds, but reversing a sua sponte order for restitution to a party unrelated to this case but related to a separate case which was dismissed

State v. Henry, No. A24-2019 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Sherburne County District Court (71-CR-23-1398)
  • Opinion, Bentley
  • Affirming denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of a car where the smell of marijuana alone was not the sole basis for establishing probable cause for a search (per State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164), but that a packaging violation for medical marijuana (among other circumstances) was a reasonable inference supporting probable cause

State v. Hassan, No. A24-1956 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Stearns County District Court (73-CR-23-3908 )
  • Opinion, Bentley
  • Affirming a conviction for criminal sexual conduct on sufficiency of evidence grounds, and denying a new trial request based (in part) on the admission of evidence that the defendant offered to pay the victim to “drop the case”

State v. Krutchek, No. A24-0535 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Yellow Medicine County District Court (87-CR-22-315)
  • Opinion, Cleary
  • Affirming a conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct on grounds that the defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective, that while the prosecutor committed plain error by asking the jury to “evaluate this case through the eyes of the child” in their closing that the error was harmless, and that the court did not err in excluding the defendant's girlfriend's testimony that the victim had said she was “good at lying”

Order Opinions

Villanueva v. Hartung, No. A25-0786 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-24-11922)
  • Opinion, Reyes
  • Affirming the dismissal of MGDPA and common law privacy claims against a child support officer and agency for releasing financial information and employment information to the counterparty in a child support dispute

In re Civil Commitment of Branson, No. A25-1080 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2025).

  • Civil: Civil Commitment
  • Appeal from Anoka County District Court (02-PR-08-613)
  • Opinion, Schmidt
  • Affirming the denial of a committed person's motion to vacate the order appointing counsel in his initial commitment proceeding, holding that In re Civil Commitment of Benson, 12 N.W.3d 711, does not apply to initial commitment proceedings and that the appellant did not attempt to waive counsel during that proceeding

Read more