Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators
Headline: County Not Liable for Alleged Wrongful Termination
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Former employee's age discrimination claim against Douglas County fails for lack of evidence suggesting age was the reason for termination.
- Document all performance feedback and disciplinary actions thoroughly.
- Ensure consistent application of company policies across all employees.
- Train managers on anti-discrimination laws and proper termination procedures.
Case Summary
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators, decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on April 16, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The core dispute involved whether Douglas County and its intergovernmental trust were liable for the alleged wrongful termination of Dawn M. Simonson, a former employee. The court reasoned that Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and that the county's stated reasons for termination were legitimate and non-discriminatory. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, finding no basis for Simonson's claims. The court held: The court held that Dawn M. Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because she did not present sufficient evidence to show that she was a member of a protected class or that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably.. The court held that the reasons provided by Douglas County for Simonson's termination, including performance issues and insubordination, were legitimate and non-discriminatory, and that Simonson failed to demonstrate these reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.. The court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision, finding no error in its determination that the evidence did not support Simonson's claims of wrongful termination.. The court held that the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, as an insurer, was not directly liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of Douglas County, as its role was limited to indemnification.. The court concluded that Simonson's claims of constructive discharge were also unsubstantiated, as the working conditions she alleged did not rise to the level of being so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.. This case reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face when alleging employment discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence of discriminatory intent or pretext, rather than relying solely on subjective perceptions of unfairness. Employers can take comfort in the affirmation that legitimate, well-documented reasons for termination will likely withstand legal challenge.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A former employee, Dawn M. Simonson, sued Douglas County alleging age discrimination when she was fired. The court found she didn't provide enough evidence to suggest her age was the reason for her termination. The county's reasons for firing her were considered legitimate, so the court ruled in favor of the county.
For Legal Practitioners
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the MHRA by not demonstrating circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The court found the employer's articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination were not shown to be pretextual.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the burden-shifting framework in employment discrimination claims under the MHRA. The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, including an inference of discrimination. Failure to meet this initial burden, as Simonson did, means the employer's legitimate reasons for termination will likely stand, and the claim will be dismissed.
Newsroom Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against a former Douglas County employee, Dawn M. Simonson, in her age discrimination lawsuit. The court found insufficient evidence that her termination was due to her age, upholding the county's stated reasons for firing her.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that Dawn M. Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because she did not present sufficient evidence to show that she was a member of a protected class or that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably.
- The court held that the reasons provided by Douglas County for Simonson's termination, including performance issues and insubordination, were legitimate and non-discriminatory, and that Simonson failed to demonstrate these reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
- The court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision, finding no error in its determination that the evidence did not support Simonson's claims of wrongful termination.
- The court held that the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, as an insurer, was not directly liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of Douglas County, as its role was limited to indemnification.
- The court concluded that Simonson's claims of constructive discharge were also unsubstantiated, as the working conditions she alleged did not rise to the level of being so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.
Key Takeaways
- Document all performance feedback and disciplinary actions thoroughly.
- Ensure consistent application of company policies across all employees.
- Train managers on anti-discrimination laws and proper termination procedures.
- When terminating an employee, clearly articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
- Be prepared to defend termination decisions with evidence if challenged.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review, as the case involves the interpretation of statutes and legal standards, which are reviewed independently by the appellate court without deference to the lower court's findings.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Douglas County and the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof was on Dawn M. Simonson to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Once established, the burden would shift to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Simonson would then have the burden to prove that the employer's stated reason was a pretext for discrimination. The standard of proof for Simonson was a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Tests Applied
Prima Facie Case of Discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
Elements: The employee belongs to a protected class. · The employee was qualified for the job. · The employee suffered an adverse employment action. · The circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.
The court found that Simonson failed to establish the fourth element, that the circumstances gave rise to an inference of discrimination. While she was a member of a protected class (age) and suffered an adverse employment action (termination), she did not present evidence that similarly situated younger employees were treated more favorably or that the termination was motivated by age bias. The court noted that her performance issues and the county's documented reasons for termination undermined any inference of discrimination.
Statutory References
| Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2 | Prohibited Employment Practices — This statute prohibits employers from refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating against an employee on the basis of age, race, creed, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with respect to public assistance. |
| Minn. Stat. § 363A.20, subd. 4 | Remedies for Discrimination — This statute outlines the remedies available for a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, including compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, and injunctive relief. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a plaintiff must present evidence that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination."
"The employer's stated reason for the adverse employment action must be legitimate and nondiscriminatory. If the employer articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer's stated reason was a pretext for discrimination."
"An inference of discrimination can arise from evidence that the employer did not follow its own policies, that the employer treated similarly situated employees outside the protected class more favorably, or that the employer made statements indicating discriminatory animus."
Remedies
Affirmed the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals.Douglas County and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust are not liable for wrongful termination based on discrimination.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Document all performance feedback and disciplinary actions thoroughly.
- Ensure consistent application of company policies across all employees.
- Train managers on anti-discrimination laws and proper termination procedures.
- When terminating an employee, clearly articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
- Be prepared to defend termination decisions with evidence if challenged.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are fired from your job and suspect it's because of your age, but your employer cites performance issues.
Your Rights: You have the right to sue for age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act if you can show evidence that age was a motivating factor in your termination, or that the employer's stated reasons are false and a cover-up for age bias.
What To Do: Gather any evidence suggesting age bias (e.g., comments made by supervisors, preferential treatment of younger employees). Consult with an employment lawyer to assess if you can meet the 'inference of discrimination' standard required to proceed with a lawsuit.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to fire someone because they are over 40?
No, it is illegal to fire someone solely because they are over 40 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
Applies to employers with 20 or more employees nationwide under ADEA, and generally all employers in Minnesota under MHRA.
Practical Implications
For Employees over 40 in Minnesota
This ruling reinforces that simply being in a protected age class and being terminated is not enough to prove age discrimination. Employees must present specific evidence suggesting age was a factor or that the employer's reasons are a pretext for age bias.
For Employers in Minnesota
The ruling provides clarity on the evidentiary standard required to defeat an age discrimination claim at the summary judgment stage. Employers can rely on documented, legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions, provided they can show these reasons were not a pretext for discrimination.
Related Legal Concepts
Unlawful treatment of an employee or applicant based on protected characteristic... Summary Judgment
A court decision resolving a case without a full trial, granted when there are n... Minnesota Human Rights Act
State law prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodatio...
Frequently Asked Questions (35)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What is Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators about?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators is a case decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on April 16, 2025.
Q: What court decided Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is part of the MN state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators decided?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators was decided on April 16, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators?
The citation for Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was the main issue in the Simonson v. Douglas County case?
The main issue was whether Dawn M. Simonson presented enough evidence to support her claim that Douglas County terminated her employment due to age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Legal Analysis (15)
Q: Is Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators published?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators cover?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators covers the following legal topics: Minnesota Human Rights Act discrimination claims, Wrongful termination, Prima facie case of discrimination, Pretext for discrimination, Employer liability for employee termination, Adverse employment actions.
Q: What was the ruling in Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators. Key holdings: The court held that Dawn M. Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because she did not present sufficient evidence to show that she was a member of a protected class or that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably.; The court held that the reasons provided by Douglas County for Simonson's termination, including performance issues and insubordination, were legitimate and non-discriminatory, and that Simonson failed to demonstrate these reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.; The court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision, finding no error in its determination that the evidence did not support Simonson's claims of wrongful termination.; The court held that the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, as an insurer, was not directly liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of Douglas County, as its role was limited to indemnification.; The court concluded that Simonson's claims of constructive discharge were also unsubstantiated, as the working conditions she alleged did not rise to the level of being so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign..
Q: Why is Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators important?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face when alleging employment discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence of discriminatory intent or pretext, rather than relying solely on subjective perceptions of unfairness. Employers can take comfort in the affirmation that legitimate, well-documented reasons for termination will likely withstand legal challenge.
Q: What precedent does Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators set?
Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that Dawn M. Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because she did not present sufficient evidence to show that she was a member of a protected class or that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably. (2) The court held that the reasons provided by Douglas County for Simonson's termination, including performance issues and insubordination, were legitimate and non-discriminatory, and that Simonson failed to demonstrate these reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. (3) The court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision, finding no error in its determination that the evidence did not support Simonson's claims of wrongful termination. (4) The court held that the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, as an insurer, was not directly liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of Douglas County, as its role was limited to indemnification. (5) The court concluded that Simonson's claims of constructive discharge were also unsubstantiated, as the working conditions she alleged did not rise to the level of being so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.
Q: What are the key holdings in Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators?
1. The court held that Dawn M. Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because she did not present sufficient evidence to show that she was a member of a protected class or that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably. 2. The court held that the reasons provided by Douglas County for Simonson's termination, including performance issues and insubordination, were legitimate and non-discriminatory, and that Simonson failed to demonstrate these reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. 3. The court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision, finding no error in its determination that the evidence did not support Simonson's claims of wrongful termination. 4. The court held that the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, as an insurer, was not directly liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of Douglas County, as its role was limited to indemnification. 5. The court concluded that Simonson's claims of constructive discharge were also unsubstantiated, as the working conditions she alleged did not rise to the level of being so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.
Q: What cases are related to Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators?
Precedent cases cited or related to Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators: Hubbard v. United Hospital, 477 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1991); La Guardia v. City of St. Paul, 870 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 2015); Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 93 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 1996).
Q: Did the court find that Douglas County discriminated against Dawn M. Simonson based on her age?
No, the court found that Simonson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not provide sufficient evidence that the circumstances of her termination gave rise to an inference of age bias.
Q: What is a 'prima facie case' of discrimination?
A prima facie case is the initial evidence needed to proceed with a discrimination lawsuit. It requires showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the job, an adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting discrimination.
Q: What evidence did Simonson need to show to prove her age discrimination claim?
Simonson needed to show evidence that her age was a motivating factor in the termination or that the county's stated reasons for firing her were a pretext for age discrimination, such as evidence of bias or preferential treatment of younger employees.
Q: What were the reasons Douglas County gave for terminating Simonson?
The opinion indicates Douglas County cited legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to Simonson's performance and conduct, which the court found were not shown to be a pretext for age discrimination.
Q: What is the 'burden of proof' in an employment discrimination case like this?
The employee (Simonson) has the initial burden to prove a prima facie case. If successful, the employer must provide a legitimate reason, and then the employee must prove that reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Q: What does 'de novo review' mean in this context?
De novo review means the Supreme Court looked at the legal issues of the case fresh, without giving deference to the lower courts' legal conclusions, because it involved interpreting statutes and legal standards.
Q: What is the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)?
The MHRA is a state law that prohibits employers in Minnesota from discriminating against employees based on protected characteristics, including age, race, sex, religion, and disability.
Q: What happens if an employer's stated reason for termination is found to be a 'pretext'?
If an employer's stated reason is proven to be a pretext (a false excuse) for discrimination, the employee's discrimination claim can succeed, potentially leading to remedies like back pay or reinstatement.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators affect me?
This case reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face when alleging employment discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence of discriminatory intent or pretext, rather than relying solely on subjective perceptions of unfairness. Employers can take comfort in the affirmation that legitimate, well-documented reasons for termination will likely withstand legal challenge. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What practical advice can employers take away from this case?
Employers should ensure they have clear, documented, legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for all employment actions and consistently apply their policies to avoid claims of pretext or discrimination.
Q: What should an employee do if they believe they were fired due to age discrimination?
An employee should gather any evidence suggesting age bias, such as comments or disparate treatment of younger colleagues, and consult with an employment lawyer to evaluate the strength of their claim.
Q: Can an employer be sued for age discrimination if they have performance issues with an employee?
Yes, but the employer can defend against the claim by showing the performance issues were the genuine, non-discriminatory reason for termination and not a cover for age bias.
Q: What is the role of 'similarly situated employees' in discrimination cases?
Evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably can help establish an inference of discrimination, but Simonson did not present such evidence.
Historical Context (2)
Q: When was the Minnesota Human Rights Act enacted?
The Minnesota Human Rights Act has evolved over time, with significant revisions occurring in 1967 and subsequent amendments to expand protections.
Q: What is the history of age discrimination laws in the US?
Federal age discrimination protections began with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, which initially protected workers aged 40-65.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators?
The docket number for Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators is A241309. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: How did this case reach the Minnesota Supreme Court?
The case came to the Supreme Court via a writ of certiorari from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer.
Q: What is a 'writ of certiorari'?
A writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court to a lower court to send up the records of a case for review, typically granted when the higher court agrees to hear an appeal.
Q: What is 'summary judgment'?
Summary judgment is a court order deciding a case without a trial when there are no significant factual disputes and one party is legally entitled to win.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Hubbard v. United Hospital, 477 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1991)
- La Guardia v. City of St. Paul, 870 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 2015)
- Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 93 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 1996)
Case Details
| Case Name | Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators |
| Citation | |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-16 |
| Docket Number | A241309 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 25 / 100 |
| Significance | This case reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face when alleging employment discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence of discriminatory intent or pretext, rather than relying solely on subjective perceptions of unfairness. Employers can take comfort in the affirmation that legitimate, well-documented reasons for termination will likely withstand legal challenge. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Minnesota Human Rights Act discrimination, Wrongful termination, Prima facie case of discrimination, Pretext for discrimination, Constructive discharge, Employer liability |
| Jurisdiction | mn |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Dawn M. Simonson, Respondent, vs. Douglas County, and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust, Relators was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Minnesota Human Rights Act discrimination or from the Minnesota Supreme Court:
-
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Herbert A. Igbanugo, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0191139. ...
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Reinstatement of Registration No. 0191139
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Madelyne Zielinski
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms DWI and Test Refusal Convictions Against ZielinskiMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
State of Minnesota v. Scot Perry Christian
Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Scot Perry Christian's Murder Convictions, Upholding Exclusion of Third-Party Perpetrator EvidenceMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Certificate No. 112938 – ...
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Foreclosure Voided Due to Failure to Provide Statutory Notice to HomeownerMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18
-
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Drug Convictions, Upholding Search Warrant Based on Probable CauseMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18