MINNESOTA CIVIL APPEALS LAWYER
Civil litigation cases frequently turn on questions of law rather than on disputed issues of fact. Is the plaintiff’s claim barred by the applicable statute of limitations? How is the contract between the parties to be interpreted? Is either party entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in light of the undisputed facts?
District courts initially rule upon such legal questions. But a district court’s legal rulings are subject to appeal. It is important to understand that an appellate court reviews a district court’s legal rulings de novo (without “deferring” in any way to the lower court). For this reason, the appeal of a legal ruling is truly a new ball game.
Whether a party has won or lost at the district court level, the party must recognize that the outcome can change on appeal. It is critical, therefore, to ensure that the lawyer handling an appeal fully understands the appellate process and the special rules that govern it. Counsel must likewise have the experience to determine how best to frame and present pivotal legal issues to the appellate court.
CIVIL APPEAL VICTORIES
Brad Delapena has prosecuted and defended many complex appeals involving large sums of money and important principles of law. Here are some examples:
State v. Randolph (2011):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Statutory Interpretation. In a previous decision, the Court ruled that persons appealing misdemeanor convictions had the right to counsel at public expense, but noted that the Legislature had neither required public defenders to handle misdemeanor appeals nor funded the Board of Public Defense to provide these additional services. Nevertheless, when Randolph appealed his misdemeanor conviction, Rice County alleged that the already overburdened public defense system had to furnish and fund appellate counsel for Randolph. Brad ultimately persuaded the Court to reject Rice County’s attempt to saddle the public defense system with this unfunded mandate, and thus ensured the system could continue to provide those essential services for which the Legislature had funded it. The Court ultimately required the State to pay for Randolph’s appeal lawyer.
In re J.B. (2010):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Statutory Right to Counsel. On behalf of the Minnesota Board of Public Defense, Brad filed a friend-of-court brief that persuaded the Minnesota Supreme Court that, under controlling child-protection statutes, Minnesota counties must furnish and fund counsel for indigent parents in child in need of protective service and termination of parental rights cases.
J.E.B. et al. v Danks (2010):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Immunity and Summary Judgment. Brad obtained reversal of a lower court summary judgment ruling that a family wronged by a false report of child abuse could not proceed in its lawsuit against the false reporter. The Minnesota Supreme Court noted that a child protection investigator had deemed the report “false” and it ruled that the defendant was not entitled to immunity from the plaintiffs’ defamation and false child abuse report claims. This case reaffirms that a jury—not a judge—must determine disputed immunity claims.
State ex rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc. (2006):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Contract. Brad obtained reversal of a district court ruling that the State’s 75-cents per-pack “Health Impact Fee” violated the State’s 1998 settlement with the major cigarette manufacturers. Brad’s appellate victory secured for the State of Minnesota a revenue stream valued at $180 million per year.
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State (2006):
Minnesota Supreme Court – First Amendment, Equal Protection, Bill of Attainder. Brad obtained affirmance of a lower court ruling that the State’s 35-cent per-pack fee for non-settling cigarette manufacturers complied with the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Brad’s appellate victory secured for the State a revenue stream valued at $6 million per year.
Walker v. Zuehlke (2002):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Equal Protection. Brad obtained reversal of a district court ruling declaring that tax-base sharing within the State’s Taconite Tax Relief Area was unconstitutional.
Peoples State Bank Truman v. Triplett (2001):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Statute of Limitations. Brad obtained reversal of a district court ruling that bank’s claims were timely under the applicable statute of limitation.
FREE CONSULTATION
Brad Assists Clients With Criminal and Civil Appeals, and State Tax Appeals.
Contact Us For A Free Consultation
