Back in late 2008, Derrick Riddle appears to have thought he would be able to score some serious cash by proposing that he would facilitate a bribe of Thomas Petters’ trial judge for Petters’ criminal case.

There were more than a few problems with the scheme, not the least of which was that, at the time of his proposal, no judge had been assigned.  On this basis, his Riddle’s defense counsel at the criminal trial for swindle raised the defense of impossibility.  Minnesota’s pattern jury instructions with regard to impossibility provide:

Even though the commission of a crime was impossible because of the circumstances under which the act was performed or because of the inadequacy of the means employed, a person is guilty of an attempt to commit that crime if the person intended to commit the crime and took a substantial step toward its commission. However, if the impossibility of committing the crime would have been obvious to a person of normal understanding, you cannot find that an attempt to commit a crime occurred.

There is a tendency at settlement conferences, mediations, and other informal conclusions to legal disputes to rush out the door and move on to more pressing aspects of business and life, often leaving the “loose ends” or “details” to a later date,  a date that slips, slips again, and sometimes even disappears for good.

Applied Equipment Company (“Applied”) thought it had settled its dispute with AEC in 2001, with whom Applied had a sales rep agreement.  Counsel for the parties even made a statement in open court, after a settlement conference, that they had reached a settlement and, apparently, they put the material terms of the settlement “on the record.”  Unfortunately for Applied, “on the record” here meant “not on the record” because there is no existing recording or transcript of this agreement. Read the rest of this entry »

There are eleven federally recognized Indian tribes in Minnesota.  This is not the forum for a comprehensive discussion of the interplay between Tribal Court law vs. Minnesota state law vs. United States law but, suffice it to say, as is evident from two recent decisions, almost every Minnesota civil litigator, at one time or another, will have a case or two that touches on Indian law (if it’s not wholly subsumed by it).

Casinos and related financial or commercial endeavors are often the crossroads where Minnesota civil litigators find themselves working with, around, within, or against these overlapping (or not overlapping) jurisdictions.

Read the rest of this entry »

A pre-teen girl allegedly confided in a friend by saying that her brother had touched her in inappropriate ways.  After a delay of 90 days or so, the friend’s mother made a report of possible sexual abuse to the county’s child-protection authorities.  There was subsequent investigation and, ultimately, no finding of any abuse was made.  The girl’s family sued the friend’s mother, alleging common-law claims of defamation and invasion of privacy and a statutory claim of making a false report of maltreatment of a child.  The district court granted summary judgment to the friend’s mother on the ground that she was immune from liability pursuant to Minnesota law regarding the mistreatment of minors.

There seems to be a significant likelihood of reversal, based on argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court on March 8.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, joined in full by six Justices and in part by Justices Scalia and Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance are debt-relief agencies under the bankruptcy abuse law (opinion is here) and that the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act) does not violate the consitution in setting limitations on advice that “debt relief agencies” (including law firms) can give debtors.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the underlying Eighth Circuit decision, siding with the dissenting Judge Steven Colloton.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle, Sr. (D. Minn.) has issued an amended Notice of Sentencing for Tom Petters (here).   Any predictions as to Mr. Petters’ sentence?  (Life in prison without parole? 150 years?  Feeling guilty should be punishment enough?)

[UPDATE:  Thursday morning, 3/4/10, the House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology, and Elections Committee passed HF224, the MSBA’s high priority judicial selection reform bill, by a 14-4 margin.  The bill was presented by its chief author, lawyer-legislator Rep. Steve Simon (DFL-St. Louis Park).  Among those testifying in support of the bill were Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and his predecessor, Kathleen Blatz.  The bill now moves to the House Civil Justice Committee.]

When we vote for legislators or those in the executive branches of state and federal government, we need to know where they stand on the important political and social issues of the day because these are the people who will pass our laws and shape our public policy.

Judges, on the other hand, are, of course, supposed to be neutral arbiters of individual disputes subject to court rules, evidentiary constraints, and the appellate process.  We might wish to know how they would decide every case (or “most cases,” or “the important cases”) but, for any judicial candidate worth our vote, that would be impossible for him or her to tell us in advance — like asking a doctor for a diagnosis without any tests or examination.

In short, subjecting judicial candidates to the same electoral process that has been historically reserved for legislators and our executive branch leaders is simply a disastrous proposition.  Read the linked White Paper on a Proposed Minnesota Constitutional Amendment Concerning Judicial Selection, Retention, and Evaluation by the Coalition for Impartial Justice and authored by Bruce Jones and Kyle Hawkins of Faegre & Benson, LLP.  It is a well-researched and compelling call to action against a serious threat to the impartiality, independence, and integrity of Minnesota’s judiciary.  More after the break… Read the rest of this entry »

In an antitrust battle that has been pending since 2004 before U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim (D. Minn.), the market, at least, seems to think that plaintiff Minneapolis-based Insignia Systems, Inc. has the upper hand and Defendant News Corp. is against the ropes.  The media has taken notice of the substantial risk to News Corp., saying that Murdoch’s company might lose as much in this litigation as the company made with its hit movie, Avatar.

News Corp. settled a similar case brought by Michigan-based Valassis Corp. in late January.  Shares of Insignia Systems, Inc. stock shot up to a 6-year high the next day.

As is evident from Insignia Systems’ letter to the Court in late February, Insignia Systems is pushing hard toward a Spring trial and, in its view, News Corp. is pulling out all the stops to avoid “its day in court.”   On the other hand, Insignia CEO, Scott Drill, is apparently a poker player so who knows if he’s bluffing?

By the time this modern-day file-sharing martyrdom plays out, Lady Gaga will have gone the way of Cyndi Lauper (once a name recognized by everyone but now, not so many? (though that could change when Lauper joins Lady Gaga for the Spring 2010 Mac Viva Glam Campaign??)).

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis (C.J., D. Minn.) issued an order this week setting another jury trial for damages in this highly-publicized file-sharing case (previously covered here, here, here, here).

Apparently electricity travels about 66% the speed of light through a coaxial cable (about 125,000 miles/second?).

It used to take a little bit longer to transmit settlement proposals and responses to settlement proposals but those days are over.

E-speed is a bit too fast in some cases as lawyers pop off an email before rushing out the door and find themselves arguably having settled a case, which the client does not see the same way (or sends off an email failing to settle the case, but the opposing lawyer does not see it the same way?).

Clearly one of these two scenarios was the case in TJC’s Transportation Solution v.  Rivard Cos., now pending before U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle, Sr. (D. Minn.), where the Court will hear motions argued in a case involving settlement negotiations via email on April 1.  More after the break… Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier this year, Minnesota Litigator covered a Minnesota Supreme Court appeal argued by a Halunen & Associates attorney in an employment case against Capella University (here).  Yesterday, CourtHouse News Service reported about a new complaint, brought by a Halunen lawyer against the University of St. Thomas, in which plaintiff alleges she was terminated for having had a hysterectomy.  Plaintiff alleges that she was instructed that she would have to tell her supervisor the reason for her medical leave because, she alleges, her employer would view this as a form of birth control “against the church.”

The complaint is somewhat sprawling in its allegations of wrong-doing, supposed whistle-blowing, sexism, etc.   One might even refer to the complaint against the University of St. Thomas as a plaintiffs’ litany (and, of course, the ever-present prayer for relief).

As covered early last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear argument at 10:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, at the University of Minnesota law school, Room 25, on “pre-litigation third party discovery” in the context of asbestos litigation.  Here is a synopsis of the issues to be decided.