Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 1, 2025

Daniel Suitor

Daniel Suitor

— 6 min read
Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 1, 2025

Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 1, 2025. A fairly hefty week, with two precedential opinions and four reversals in criminal cases. Make sure you've packed your Loon Maxx vape and written some bad checks to your local district court administrator, then take a gander at these opinions.

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

22 Opinions

  • 12 Civil

  • 10 Criminal

  • 2 precedential

  • 19 nonprecedential

  • 1 order opinion

  • 15 affirmed

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

  • 1 remanded for further findings

  • 4 reversed (3 remanded)

Decisions average 275 days from filing, 71 since argument

  • Civil: 252 / 69

  • Criminal: 302 / 74

  • Precedential: 252 / 83

  • Nonprecedential 273 / 71

  • Order opinions: 344 / 59

Most active jurist: Judge Tracy M. Smith (4 opinions)

Case Name of the Week

Kareem INC. v. Property Seized by Minnesota Depoartment of Revenue in Goodhue County

I am on record with my love of a good in rem case name. While this one could be a little more exciting, "Property Seized by Minnesota Depoartment of Revenue in Goodhue County" sounds like it could be my 27th-favorite Mountain Goats song.) with my love of an in rem case name. While this one could be a little more exciting, "Property Seized by Minnesota Depoartment of Revenue in Goodhue County" sounds like it could be my 27th-favorite Mountain Goats song. And sometimes that's enough

Sentence of the Week

"Arnold explained further that “this is real live monetary money that is . . . federally regulated” and that “anyone who does not process those instruments . . . will be prosecuted by the SEC” or another governmental entity." - State v. Arnold, page 3.

My "this is real live monetary money that is federally regulated" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.

This Week I Learned

Boy are there a lot of regulations about who can move tobacco products around and woe betide you if you employ an unlicensed tobacco products subjobber to transport Loon Maxx vape pens unlawfully. See Kareem INC.:

Subjob.png

Also, do you know anyone hiring tobacco products subjobbers? Seems like a cool gig.

Precedential Opinions

MoChridhe v. Academy of Holy Angels, No. A25-0559 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Employment
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-24-11601)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Affirming dismissal on grounds that a Catholic school is protected from discrimination claims by the First Amendment where anti-transgender teaching are a part of the school’s mission and it does not renew the contract of a transgender non-ministerial employee

State v. Eastman, No. A25-0382 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Anoka County District Court (02-CR-22-4786)
  • Opinion, Wheelock
  • Affirming revocation of probation on grounds that 2023 amendments to the probation revocation statute did not require new or heightened standings regarding whether rehabailitation has failed

Nonprecedential Opinions

In re Civil Commitment of Tapper, No. A25-1135 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Civil Commitment
  • Appeal from Blue Earth County District Court (07-PR-25-1709)
  • Opinion, Ross
  • Remanding a civil committment order for additional findings where the court's order is a verbatim replica of the county’s proposed order and does not contain statutorily required findings

State v. Arnold, No. A25-0104 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Sherburne County District Court (71-CR-21-525)
  • Opinion, Johnson
  • Affirming conviction on two counts of offering a forged check on sufficiency of the evidence grounds

State v. Beaulieu, No. A25-0571 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Mille Lacs County District Court (48-CR-10-1656)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Reversing and remanding the denial of a preliminary application to vacate a second-degree felony murder conviction based on reforms to Minnesota's felony murder laws

State v. Boettcher, No. A25-0240 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Ramsey County District Court (62-CR-23-6230)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Reversing and remanding a conviction for third-degree burglary where the trial court performed its own examination of certain evidence related to cell-tower technology based on knowledge acquired in earlier cases

State v. Ortega-Herrera, No. A24-1321 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CR-23-5099 )
  • Opinion, Reyes (Johnson dissenting)
  • Reversing and remanding a conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct where the trial court failed to give a unanimous verdict instruction to a deadlocked jury

In re Welfare of the Child(ren) of A. R.-P. and J. O., No. A25-0938 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Parental Rights
  • Appeal from Washington County District Court (82-JV-24-647 )
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Affirming termination of parental rights

Kareem INC. v. Property Seized by Minnesota Department of Revenue in Goodhue County, No. A25-0399 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Civil Forfeiture
  • Appeal from Goodhue County District Court (25-CV-24-1551 )
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Affirming a judgment of forfeiture where the retailer failed to meet statutory requirements for the transportation and recordkeeping of tobacco products

Andersen v. State, No. A25-0392 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Appeal from Carver County District Court (10-CR-06-1119 )
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Affirming denial of postconviction relief where the petition was time-barred

Smith v. Johnson, No. A24-1827 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Landlord-Tenant
  • Appeal from Ramsey County District Court (62-CV-23-2742 )
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Affirming dismissal of a various claims for damages against landlords where the plaintiff-tenant failed to properly serve the defendants

State v. Lafore, No. A24-2016 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Sherburne County District Court (71-CR-23-139)
  • Opinion, Bratvold
  • Affirming convictions for second-degree
    aggravated robbery and illegal possession of a firearm, but reversing and remanding for vacatur of a third-degree assault conviction as a lesser-included offense

McMorris v. State, No. A25-0620 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CR-16-21960 )
  • Opinion, Cochran
  • Affirming denial of postconviction relief where the trial court made findings supporting an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines

In re Welfare of the Child(ren) of J. J. F. and T. D. H., No. A25-0763 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Parental Rights
  • Appeal from Stevens County District Court (75-JV-24-153)
  • Opinion, Wheelock
  • Affirming adjudication of four children as children in need of protection or services

Carlson v. Holte, No. A25-0002 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Protective Order
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-HA-CV-24-990 )
  • Opinion, Wheelock
  • Affirming the issuance of a harrassment restraining order where a former romantic partner showed up at the petitioner's house uninvited, read her journal, and sent numerous text message with derogatory names and foul language

Rum River Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Jeddeloh, No. A25-0633 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil:
  • Appeal from Mille Lacs County District Court (48-CV-24-1226)
  • Opinion, Larson
  • Affirming summary judgment for the defendants in a contract for deed dispute on three claims, but reversing and remanding the grant of SJ on the plaintiff's unjust-enrichment claim because of a genuine dispute of material facts

Williams v. Midwest Bonding, No. A25-0378 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil:
  • Appeal from Winona County District Court (85-CV-24-1506 )
  • Opinion, Schmidt
  • Affirming dismissal of a case against a bail-bond agency on grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing because she merely paid the bond on someone else's behalf and was not a party to the transaction

Shulbe v. Henke, No. A25-0570 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from St. Louis County District Court (69DU-FA-12-611 )
  • Opinion, Ede
  • Affirming the denial of motions to modify parenting time, change the name of the children, hear the various issues in a family case separately, refund all filing fees, and have the case heard by a different court

Laumann v. Laumann, No. A25-0601 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-FA-19-2719)
  • Opinion, Harris
  • Affirming an order in a dissolution denying a former spouse certain pension benefits, awarding conduct-based attorney fees, and declining to strictly enforce an arbitration decision where there were extenuating factors

State v. Kruger, No. A25-0232 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Douglas County District Court (21-CR-24-124 )
  • Opinion, Harris
  • Affirming on direct appeal the imposition of the presumptive sentence for felony possession of child sexual abuse material

State v. Raverty, No. A25-0138 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Nicollet County District Court (52-CR-23-157 )
  • Opinion, Harris
  • Reversing a conviction for fifth-degree possession on grounds that the investigating officer improperly expanded the search of defendants car

Order Opinions

White v. Loesch, No. A24-1944 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Dakota County District Court (19WS-FA-18-1373 )
  • Opinion, Bond
  • Affirming the denial of a father's consitutional challenge to certain child-support laws and order of a $592/month support payment