Minnesota Supreme Court

Key Minnesota Supreme Court decisions with plain-language summaries.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is the state’s highest court. Its decisions are binding on all lower courts in Minnesota. Below are curated summaries of landmark Supreme Court decisions that affect everyday legal issues.

The Supreme Court has seven justices and hears cases on appeal from the Court of Appeals or, in some cases, directly from district court. The court’s published opinions establish the rules that all Minnesota courts must follow.

For the full archive of recent opinions, visit the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Thiele v. Stich

425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988)

Legal malpractice case establishing that claims are time-barred when service of process is not completed within the statutory limitations period, and that appellate courts may not raise new issues sua sponte.

State v. Lester

874 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. 2016)

Applied the automobile exception to the warrant requirement in Minnesota, holding that police may search a vehicle and its closed containers without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe the search will reveal evidence or contraband.

State v. Larson

605 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2000)

Held that security deposits create a debtor-creditor relationship (not a trust), so deposits are not 'property of another' under the theft statute. The court reversed and vacated the defendant's theft convictions.

State v. Askerooth

681 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2004)

Held that the Minnesota Constitution (Art. I, sec. 10) requires application of the Terry framework to evaluate the reasonableness of each incremental seizure during a traffic stop, finding that confining a driver in a squad car was an unreasonable escalation.

State v. Ambaye

616 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 2000)

Held that a Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness (NGMI) verdict does not qualify for expungement because it is not a 'resolution in favor of the petitioner,' and recognized courts' inherent authority to expunge records in limited circumstances.

Schmitz v. U.S. Steel Corp.

852 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. 2014)

Held that an employee has a constitutional right to a jury trial in a retaliatory discharge claim under Minn. Stat. § 176.82, and that even a supervisor's threat to discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim is actionable without actual termination.

Roehrdanz v. Brill

682 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 2004)

Addressed conciliation court removal procedures, holding that a party may effectively serve a demand for removal to district court by first-class mail without requiring a signed acknowledgment of service.

Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.

832 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2013)

Clarified the legal standards for sexual harassment claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, holding that hostile work environment claims do not require proof of economic loss.

Pikula v. Pikula

374 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1985)

Established the 'primary caretaker' preference in child custody disputes, holding that the parent who served as the child's primary caretaker should generally be awarded custody.

Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.

408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987)

Established the public policy exception to at-will employment in Minnesota, holding that an employer cannot fire an employee for refusing to break the law.

National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman

323 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1982)

Held that a noncompete agreement signed after employment begins is unenforceable unless supported by independent consideration beyond continued employment.

Nardini v. Nardini

414 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1987)

Established that the increase in value of nonmarital property attributable to spousal efforts during the marriage is marital property subject to equitable division, while increases from market forces remain nonmarital.

Moylan v. Moylan

384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1986)

Established the framework for child support modification in Minnesota, requiring a two-step analysis: first, whether a substantial change in circumstances exists, and second, what modification is warranted.

Kjesbo v. Ricks

517 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1994)

Established the standard for tortious interference with contract in Minnesota, holding that technical compliance with a statute does not justify interference when the exercise defeats the statute's purpose.

Hecker v. Hecker

568 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1997)

Addressed modification of spousal maintenance when a recipient fails to become self-supporting, holding that frustrated expectations of self-sufficiency constitute a substantial change in circumstances.

Fritz v. Warthen

213 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1973)

Held that statutory covenants of habitability under Minn. Stat. 504.18 are mutually dependent with the tenant's covenant to pay rent, creating the 'Fritz defense' to eviction for nonpayment.

Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services

841 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. 2014)

Declined to expand the public-policy exception to at-will employment, holding that the exception does not cover termination for filing for unemployment benefits where the legislature has addressed the issue but not created a civil remedy.

Colonial Court Apartments, Inc. v. Kern

163 N.W.2d 770, 282 Minn. 533 (Minn. 1968)

Held that a tenant is constructively evicted when the landlord fails to control another tenant's persistent disturbances rendering the premises unsuitable, and the tenant abandons within a reasonable time.

Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety

848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014)

Held that the necessity defense is not available in civil implied consent license revocation proceedings, even when the driver was fleeing domestic violence.

Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.

417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1988)

Pregnancy discrimination case where LaVonne Anderson was fired after announcing her pregnancy and the employer secretly interviewed a replacement. The Supreme Court affirmed the discrimination finding but reversed the attorney fees award.

Abraham v. County of Hennepin

639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002)

Held that a good-faith report of workplace safety violations is protected under the Whistleblower Act; the employee need not identify the specific statute violated; and whistleblower claims seeking damages entitle the claimant to a jury trial.