12 results for 'judge:"Gildea"'.
J. Gildea affirms the defendant's conviction for filing a false report, which stems from her claim to Waseca police that her son's father had abused him. Venue was proper for the defendant's trial in Waseca County, since the officer who received the false report was in that county even though the defendant made the claim on a phone call from Blue Earth County. The venue for the crime of filing a false report is proper in the county wherein law enforcement receives the report. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: A21-1360, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Jurisdiction
J. Gildea reverses the Court of Appeals' finding that the developer's First-Amendment retaliation claim against the city is based on acts which constitute a continuing violation. The developer alleges a series of discrete retaliatory acts, each of which would have been actionable at the time they were committed. They therefore do not toll the statute of limitations as a continuing violation. Reversed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: A22-0374, Categories: Civil Rights, First Amendment
J. Gildea reverses the district court's grant of a motion to suppress evidence, including a firearm, discovered in a vehicle during a search resulting from a tip-off that the defendant had a firearm in his vehicle. An informant's statement that he had "personally observed a male in possession of a firearm inside a vehicle" sufficiently connects the vehicle to potentially unlawful activity to justify a search, and the informant was reliable and his statements sufficiently corroborated to establish probable cause.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: A22-1073, Categories: Firearms, Search, Civil Rights
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Gildea establishes the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and appoints four members, with the mission of reviewing the report of the American Bar Association on the Rules and the Supreme Court's order addressing recommendations from that report, and subsequently developing and proposing rule amendments consistent with the directions in the court's order.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: ADM10-8043, Categories: Civil Procedure, Attorney Discipline
J. Gildea reverses the Court of Appeals' finding that the district court's factual findings in a dispute over a divorced couple's daughter's college savings account were supported by the record, that an award of attorney fees to the ex-wife was within the district court's authority and that the amount of those fees was justified. The ex-husband's refusal to transfer his interest in the college savings account as required by a settlement and his disparaging emails to his wife and daughter were not sufficient to invoke the district court's inherent authority, since despite being "annoying to the district court," the conduct did not require sanctioning to preserve judicial function, nor did it violate a court order or disrupt further adjudication.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: A21-1549, Categories: Family Law, Judiciary, Attorney Fees
J. Gildea affirms the tax court's order to the Commissioner of Revenue to recalculate the natural gas pipeline owner's tax liability. The tax court's income-capitalization approach to valuation was not invalidated by its decision to largely disregard the commissioner's expert's opinions nor by its use of the commissioner's initial assessments in making its valuations. It also did not clearly err in finding that external obsolescence affected the pipelines' value. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: June 14, 2023, Case #: A22-1069, Categories: Tax, Experts
J. Gildea partially reverses the Court of Appeals' decision regarding an administrative rule governing the handling of absentee ballots. While the Court of Appeals correctly held that there was no conflict between state statute and a portion of the rule that prohibits ballot board members from rejecting ballots because they are signed with a nickname, an existing statute conflicts with the portion of the rule which outlines a process for ballot board members to review ballots where the voter's identification number does not match the one on the signature envelope the ballot is sent in.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: A22-0111, Categories: Elections, Preemption