OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020

NOTICE – MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.

A19-1897        Larry Demetrius Pearson, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. 
                         Ramsey County.
            The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s third petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
            Affirmed.  Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
 
A18-2086        State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kristin Ann Altepeter, Appellant.
                         Court of Appeals.
            Minnesota Statutes § 609.377 (2018), does not require the State to prove that a defendant’s use of unreasonable force occurred in the course of punishment.
            Affirmed.  Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
 
A19-1451        Jonas David Nelson, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
                         Le Sueur County.
            1. The rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, and later clarified in Montgomery v. Louisiana, does not extend to adult offenders.
            2. Appellant forfeited appellate review of his argument under the Minnesota Constitution because he failed to cite Article I, Section 5 or provide any specific analysis regarding this issue to the district court and therefore the district court did not address the issue.
            Affirmed.  Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
            Dissenting, Justices Margaret H. Chutich and Paul C. Thissen.

 
A18-1987        Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al., Appellants,
                         vs. Allina Health System, Respondent, Emergency Physicians Professional Association, et al., Defendants.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1. A hospital may be vicariously liable on a theory of apparent authority for the professional negligence of an independent contractor.
            2. A plaintiff states a vicarious liability claim against a hospital for the professional negligence of an independent contractor in the hospital’s emergency room based on a theory of apparent authority if (1) the hospital held itself out as a provider of emergency medical care; and (2) the patient looked to the hospital, rather than a specific doctor, for care and relied on the hospital to select the personnel to provide services.
            Reversed and remanded.  Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
            Dissenting, Justice G. Barry Anderson and Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
            Took no part, Justice Margaret H. Chutich.

 
A20-0127        In re B. H., Appellant, State of Minnesota, intervenor, Appellant, vs. Cengiz Gino Yildirim, Respondent.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1. When an alleged victim files a motion to quash or modify a subpoena under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 22.01, subdivision 5, the district court must consider whether compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
            2. In denying a motion to quash a subpoena, the district court’s order requiring the alleged victim to turn over her cell phone to a defense-hired expert to extract data for in camera review was unauthorized by law. The district court also committed an error of law for which no adequate remedy exists and which would cause irremediable harm to the alleged victim when it failed to analyze whether compliance with the subpoena at issue was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
            Reversed; writ of prohibition issued.  Justice Margaret H. Chutich.
 
A19-0461        Meagan Abel, Appellant, vs. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., Respondents, St. Mary’s University Minnesota, Respondent.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1. The district court erred in dismissing appellant’s employment discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because the continuing violations doctrine tolled the statute of limitations, but the district court correctly dismissed her remaining statutory discrimination claims as time-barred.
            2. The absence of compensation is not dispositive in deciding whether a graduate student providing services for a hospital through an unpaid practicum program has an employment relationship with the hospital for purposes of a claim brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
            3. Appellant’s common-law negligence claims are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.04 (2018).
            Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  Justice Anne K. McKeig.
            Dissenting, Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea and Justice G. Barry Anderson.
            Took no part, Justice Margaret H. Chutich.

 
A18-1081        Alison Joel Peterson, Respondent, vs. Western National Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1. Minnesota Statutes § 604.18 (2018) requires an insured to prove that, after conducting a full investigation and fairly evaluating the evidence, a reasonable insurer would not have denied the insured’s claim for benefits, and the insurer knew, or recklessly disregarded information that would have allowed it to know, that it lacked a reasonable basis for denying the insured’s claim for benefits.
            2. The district court did not clearly err by determining that the insured proved that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying the insured’s claim for benefits and that the insurer knew, or recklessly disregarded, that it lacked a reasonable basis for denying the insured’s claim for benefits.
            Affirmed.  Justice Paul C Thissen.
            Dissenting, Justice G. Barry Anderson and Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.

 
A18-1271        Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent.
                         Court of Appeals.
            1. Those portions of title 7, chapter 139, of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances that prohibit an owner from refusing to rent residential property to an individual because of any requirement of a public assistance program do not violate the Minnesota Constitution’s guarantee of substantive due process.
            2. Those portions of title 7, chapter 139, of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances that prohibit an owner from refusing to rent residential property to an individual because of any requirement of a public assistance program do not violate the Minnesota Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
            Affirmed.  Justice Paul C Thissen.
            Concurring, Justice G. Barry Anderson and Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.