Minnesota Appellate Court Watch
LightNews LightNews
banner
minnappct.watch
Minnesota Appellate Court Watch
@minnappct.watch
160 followers 12 following 18 posts
A newsletter dedicated to tracking appellate cases in Minnesota. Trends, analysis, and the sort of fun only appellate minutia can offer. Run by @danielsuitor.com. Newsletters/posts are for informational purposes, not legal advice.

blog.minnappct.watch
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
minnappct.watch
Minnesota Appellate Court Watch @minnappct.watch · 6d
See the thread from my personal account for an explanation of what I'm trying to do here:
danielsuitor.com Daniel Suitor @danielsuitor.com · 6d
A personal update: I have been unemployed long enough to finally follow through on a project I've long toyed with. For years, I've been following Minnesota's appellate dockets and posting about notable or interesting cases and decisions.

Now, I've spun that off into @minnappct.watch
minnappct.watch
An absolutely fascinating filing with the Court of Appeals. The Minnesota Department of Corrections is seeking a writ of prohibition against the Wright County District Court itself, alleging that the court is unlawfully allowing Wright County to administer probation to felony probationers.
No. A25-____ December 4, 2025 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS _____________________________________________ Minnesota Department of Corrections, Petitioner. In Re Wright County District Court Felony Supervision Orders. _____________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE WRIGHT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION WRIT REQUESTED ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 10, 2025 INTRODUCTION By statute, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) has “exclusive responsibility for providing probation services for adult felons,” unless a county (or Tribal Nation) takes part in the Community Corrections Act (CCA) subsidy program. Minn. Stat. § 244.20(a)(1) (emphasis added). If a county wishes to take part in the CCA subsidy program, the Commissioner’s approval is required. Minn. Stat. § 401.06, subd. 1. Wright County does not have the Commissioner’s approval and is therefore ineligible to participate in the CCA subsidy program. See id. Despite the clear statutory directive for exclusive DOC responsibility for probation services for adult felons, the Wright County district court has ordered joint probation services to both Wright County Probation and the DOC. Wright County employees are intercepting the assigned clients in the courtroom, opening files on them, filing documents into their cases, and appear to be directing the clients that they do not need to meet with DOC employees. There are potentially dozens of affected adult felon clients right now, with the numbers increasing each day there is a felony court calendar in Wright County.
December 5, 2025 at 6:08 PM
minnappct.watch
Minnesota Appellate Court Watch returns for this week's releases from the Minnesota Supreme Court. We have one opinion today, in part considering the admissibility of DNA evidence gathered via a cheek swab without a warrant.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-su...
Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions: December 3, 2025
Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinion release by the Minnesota Supreme Court on December 3, 2025. We have one opinion this week, a multifaceted criminal procedure case ...
blog.minnappct.watch
December 3, 2025 at 6:42 PM
minnappct.watch
It's the first-ever edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch! This week we have 22 Court of Appeals decision, covering everything from the forfeiture of convenience store vape pens to passing bad checks to the court that just convicted you.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-co...
December 1, 2025 at 11:07 PM
minnappct.watch
Rule #1 of check forgery: don't do it

Rule #2 of check forgery: don't forge a check payable to the court which just convicted you of possession of burglary tools
FACTS On December 28, 2020, the Sherburne County District Court entered judgment in a criminal case against Arnold. The district court imposed a prison sentence but stayed execution of the sentence. The district court also ordered restitution in the amount of $1,564.78, a surcharge of $75.00, and a law library fee of $10.00, for a total of $1,649.78. Two days later, Arnold mailed an envelope to the office of the Sherburne County Court Administrator. Inside the envelope was a document entitled “CASHIER’S CHECK” in the amount of $26,649.78. The purported cashier’s check, which was introduced into evidence as exhibit 2, is appended to this opinion. The envelope included other documents, including a “letter of credit,” which explains Arnold’s means of satisfying the judgment debt, and a document warning that it would be fraudulent for the recipient to not process the cashier’s check within three days. A few weeks later, on February 12, 2021, Arnold mailed a second envelope to the court administrator’s office. Inside the second envelope was another document entitled “CASHIER’S CHECK,” this time in the amount of $1,564.78, which is the amount of restitution ordered in the prior criminal case. The second purported cashier’s check, which was introduced into evidence as exhibit 3, also is appended to this opinion. The second Possession of Burglary or Theft ToolsPossession of Burglary or Theft Tools Statute: 609.59 Additional Statute: Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools (609.59) Disposition: Convicted Disposition Date: 12/28/2020December 28 2020 Level of Sentence: Convicted of a FelonyConvicted of a Felony Level of Charge: Felony Offense Date: February 9 202002/09/2020 Community Of Offense: Elk River Law Enforcement Agency: Elk River Police Department Prosecuting Agency: Sherburne County Attorney On February 9, 2020, at approximately 6:13 a.m., officers with the Elk River Police Department responded to Great River Energy, a public utility located at 17845 Highway 10 in Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota. Security for Great River Energy reported that a white Chevrolet SUV had been on the property without permission. A man wearing a brown coat with a hood was still on the property by Warehouse 2, also without permission. Sergeant Zabee and Officer Erickson located footprints near Warehouse 2. Officer Studniski waited near Highway 10, and saw a man running south towards the highway. That man crossed the highway and went into the ditch by the Mississippi River. Officer Erickson responded to that location, and found an adult man lying near the base of a clump of trees under some large branches. That man was wearing a brown Carhartt jacket. He was identified as Eugene Nathaniel Arnold III, D.O.B. 8/18/1977, hereinafter Defendant. Officer Erickson took him into custody, and Officer Studniski transported him to the Sherburne County Jail. Officer Studniski and Sergeant Zabee then returned to Great River Energy to review surveillance video. That video showed Defendant using a ladder to get over a fence, carrying a backpack and a pair of bolt cutters that he used to cut through a different fence onto public utility property. Defendant did not have permission to cut the fence or take anything from the property. Officer Studniski located Defendant’s backpack, which contained a bolt cutter, branch trimmer, winch, chain, duct tape, and a reciprocating saw. Great River Energy security informed Sergeant Zabee that the fence had been repaired recently after someone had cut through it during a different theft in which copper wire had been stolen. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.49, intentional failure to appear for duly scheduled court appearances may result in additional criminal charges, and in addition to any arrest warrant that may o…
December 1, 2025 at 6:19 PM
minnappct.watch
See the thread from my personal account for an explanation of what I'm trying to do here:
danielsuitor.com Daniel Suitor @danielsuitor.com · 6d
A personal update: I have been unemployed long enough to finally follow through on a project I've long toyed with. For years, I've been following Minnesota's appellate dockets and posting about notable or interesting cases and decisions.

Now, I've spun that off into @minnappct.watch
December 1, 2025 at 5:43 PM
minnappct.watch
In a precedential opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal of a transgender woman's discrimination case against a Catholic school, ruling the 1st Amendment protects the school because declining to employ trans people "affects the faith and mission of the church itself." #MACW
IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0559 Reyzl Grace MoChridhe, Appellant, vs. Academy of Holy Angels, Respondent, Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Respondent. Filed December 1, 2025 Affirmed Larkin, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-24-11601 Jess Braverman, Brittany Stewart (pro hac vice), Gender Justice, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Joni M. Thome, Katherine Rollins, Wanta Thome PLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Katie M. Connolly, Sara Gross Methner, Sara L. Lewenstein, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Thomas B. Wieser, Thomas Wieser Law, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Holy Angels) Paul J. Zech, Scott D. Blake, Felhaber Larson, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Lorie S. Gildea, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Archdiocese) Leslie L. Lienemann, Celeste E. Culberth, Culberth & Lienemann, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Brian T. Rochel, Kitzer Rochel, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and As this case shows—on the face of MoChridhe’s complaint—the decision not to offer her renewed employment at Holy Angels was based only on a religious reason: her stated inability to abide by the directives in the Guiding Principles, as applied in the school setting. Thus, consideration of MoChridhe’s claims would require consideration of the Archdiocese’s religious reason for the employment decision, would interfere with the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require compliance with the Guiding Principles in the school setting—which relates to the church’s mission to educate young people in its faith— and would foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion. The potential 27 inapplicability of the ministerial exception does not change that conclusion, and there is no precedent indicating that it must.5 In conclusion, we recognize the apparent tension between the government’s interest in eliminating discrimination and the religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” Hosanna Tabor, 565 U.S. at 196 (emphasis added); see Geraci, 526 N.W.2d at 399 (“There is a tension between eradicating discrimination and permitting the free exercise of religion; however, in this case, the balance weighs in favor of the First Amendment.”). Based on our application of precedent to the particular facts of this case—as alleged in MoChridhe’s complaint—we hold that because the allegations in MoChridhe’s complaint, construed in her favor, establish that the district court’s adjudication of her claims would violate the religious protections of the First Amendment as a matter of law, the district court properly dismissed MoChridhe’s employment discrimination claims against the Archdiocese for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).
December 1, 2025 at 5:16 PM