Latest 4 Cases: Minnesota Sands, LLC v. County of Winona, Minnesota (Civil Rights), K.M. v. Burnsville Police Department (Criminal Law), Anderson ...

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

Minnesota Sands, LLC v. County of Winona, Minnesota

Docket: A18-0090

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Chutich

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

In this challenge to a zoning ordinance prohibiting industrial mineral operations within Winona County the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district granting summary judgment to the County on all of Minnesota Sands, LLC's claims, holding that the ordinance was constitutional. Minnesota Sands, a mining company, sought to mine and process silica sand in the County. Minnesota Sands sued the County requesting declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The district court granted summary judgment to the County. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or work an unconstitutional taking of Minnesota Sands' property interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Minnesota Sands had standing to bring this case; (2) the County's ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause on its face, in purpose or in effect; and (3) Minnesota Sands' takings claims failed because the property interests it claimed were taken by the County had not yet accrued.

K.M. v. Burnsville Police Department

Dockets: A19-0414, A19-0714

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: David L. Lillehaug

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition seeking the return of seized property, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the seized property was being held as potential evidence in a pending investigation and in deciding that the property was being held in good faith. Appellant, an attorney, was part of an investigation. Pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement officers seized electronic devices containing files about Appellant's current and former clients. Appellant filed a motion seeking the return of the seized property. The district court considered the motion to be a petition under Minn. Stat. 626.04 and denied the motion on the ground that the property was being held in good faith as potential evidence in an uncharged matter. While this appeal was pending, Appellant was charged with theft by swindle. The Supreme Court affirmed without prejudice to any future challenge to the lawfulness of the search and seizure, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition even though the court should have required the State to return the attorney copies of all client files seized.

Anderson v. State

Docket: A19-0745

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Thissen

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's second petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court properly declined to grant Appellant a new trial and that Appellant's remaining claims also did not entitle him to relief. The Supreme Court reversed in part the district court's denial of Appellant's second postconviction petition and remanded for a determination of whether an evidentiary hearing was required to consider evidence set forth in two affidavits. The district court conducted a hearing and found that the testimony set forth in the affidavits was not credible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not establish that he was entitled to a new trial under the tests set forth in Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997), and State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1982); and (2) the remainder of Appellant's claims were did not entitle Appellant to relief.

State v. Montanez

Docket: A19-0170

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal from an order of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's request for funding under Minn. Stat. 611.21(a) for out-of-court interpreter services to facilitate attorney-client communication with his public defender, holding that Defendant waived the interpreter-funding issue by pleading guilty before filing his petition for review. Defendant was charged with second-degree assault and attempted second-degree murder. Defendant needed an interpreter for his court appearances and meetings with his public defender. Defendant filed two ex parte applications to fund interpreter services, which the district court denied. Defendant pled guilty to second-degree assault and then filed a petition for review. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that Defendant waived his right to challenge the denial of his request for funding by pleading guilty before filing his petition for review.