Articles

Controversial Choices: Top Ten Minnesota Cases of the Century

Marshall H. Tanick
(email)
Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A.
1700 U. S. Bank Plaza South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: 612.339.4295
FAX: 612.339.3161

The end of the year is usually the time when pundits, savants, and other know-it-all's look back and test the most momentous incidents, personalities, or other features of the past year. It is especially fitting to do so when the end of the year co-exists with the end of the decade, century, and Millennium.

Since one year is too short of time to have proper perspective on Minnesota jurisprudence, and a Millennium is far too long, a century seems appropriate. Selecting the top cases of the past century in Minnesota jurisprudence is bound to provoke controversy. Even the criteria for the designation can be debated. But this observer has selected the ten Minnesota Supreme Court cases of the last 100 years that seem to have the most impact on Minnesota law and jurisprudence. Not surprisingly, they are confined to the second half of the century. That is not because of a dearth of significant cases decided in the first 50 years, but because those that have had the most impact seem to have been promulgated since then.

Without further ado, here is one observer's top ten list.

A Question of Class: The class action as a vehicle of redress for wide-spread, but often small individual indignities was hardly used at all until the last few decades. Its utilization was spurred in Minnesota by a ruling of the Supreme Court in Rathbun v. W.T. Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 219 N.W.2d 641 1974)) which upheld a class action lawsuit for usury under Rule 23 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court endorsed the class action concept by stating that "the class action is superior to other methods in promoting the public purpose of the usury statute to protect those who cannot protect themselves." 300 Minn. at 241, 219 N.W.2d at 653.
Tort Tradition: Minnesota does not have its own version of the McDonald's "hot coffee" case or other seemingly outlandish tort lawsuits. But the State has its own tradition of expansive tort law, ushered in by McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1967). The case involved a child who was injured by a steam vaporizer. The Court upheld the doctrine of strict liability for a defective product, imposing liability upon the manufacturer of a vaporizer, which caused severe burns to a child when it overturned. While upholding liability on other basis of negligence and breach of warranty, the Court went further "to declare [its] agreement with the principle underlying the rule of strict tort liability," expanding the traditional bases of tort and contract liability.
Immunity Issue: Liability claims against governmental entities, especially state and its agencies, came into being as a result of Nieting v. Blondell, 306 Minn. 122 N.W.2d 597 (1975). In addition to dismantling the age-old doctrine of sovereign immunity from tort liability which bars litigation against a state or its subordinate governmental units, the case is of jurisprudence significance because it represents one of the few instances in which the Minnesota Supreme Court has overruled a prior ruling, Johnson v. Callisto, 287 Minn. 61, 176 N.W.2d 754 (Minn. 1970) which had upheld sovereign immunity only five years before the Nieting case. The Court stated that sovereign immunity from tort "no longer serves a useful purpose," and invalidated it prospectively as a defense.
Personnel Pamphlet: Employment law skyrocketed as a result of the Court's recognition of a cause of action for a breach of contract arising out of deviation by an employer from the terms of an employment manual in firing an employee in Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. 1983). Although it has been retrenched in subsequent years, the Pine River doctrine still imposes obligations upon employers for statements made in employee handbooks, manuals, and other personnel pamphlets distributed at the workplace under the principle that "job security provisions are enforceable" if contained in employment handbooks."
Competing Considerations: Non-compete contracts are being used with increasing frequency by Minnesota businesses these days, especially in high-tech enterprises. While Minnesota Courts generally uphold post-employment restrictions that are deemed "reasonable," the state also has developed its own body of non-compete law that diverges from principles in many other jurisdictions.

As illustration, in Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 334 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 1983) the Court struck down a non-compete agreement entered into by a doctor in Duluth on the grounds that it was not signed at the time of the commencement of employment or entered into for additional compensation beyond what the employee was otherwise entitled to at the time of the agreement, which resulted in a holding that non-compete contracts may be held "unenforceable for lack of consideration."

Issuing Injunctions: The Minnesota Courts are frequently called upon to issue injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions before adjudication on the merits. The five-part standard that guides them was articulated in Dahlberg Bros. Inc., v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 137 N.W.2d 314 (1965). An automobile dealership in Hopkins was allowed to enjoin the termination of its dealership by the manufacturer on satisfaction of a five-prong test, which includes consideration of the relationship between the parties, the balance of harm if injunctive relief is granted or not, the likelihood of success on the merits, the public interest, and the administrative feasibility of injunctive relief, a multi-step process that has stood the test of time. E.g., Unlimited Horizon Marketing, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 63,65-6 (Minn. App. 1995).
Sign of the Times: The Minnesota Supreme Court, unlike its counterparts in other jurisdictions, has been reluctant to interpret the provisions of the Minnesota State Constitution more expansively than parallel clauses under the Federal Constitution. See "Constitutional 'Revolution' Doesn't Reach Minnesota", September 27, 1999, p. 14. But one clause of the State Constitution that has been construed more broadly than its Federal parallel is the guaranty of religious freedom under Article I, Section 16. In State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1990), the Court ruled that an Amish farmer could not be convicted for refusing to place a warning sign of a slow-moving vehicle on his buggy because it offended his religious beliefs. The Court treated the "freedom of conscious" provision in the State Constitution more broadly than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based upon the language and history of the Minnesota provision, the concept also reflected in an earlier ruling by the Court in State v. Hershberger, 460 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1990) which held that the religious freedom provision of the State Constitution also trumped the anti-discrimination provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As the Court concluded in Hershberger: "Minnesotans are afforded greater protection for religious liberties against governmental action under the state constitution than under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution."
Contract Claim: The limitations on assertion of constitutional rights as a defense to civil causes of actions was reflected in Cowles v. Media Co., 479 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 1992), the last piece of litigation in the decade-long merry-go-round lawsuit arising out of the unauthorized disclosure by a pair of Twin Cities newspapers of the identity of a confidential news source. Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, 501 U.S. 663 (1991) the Court upheld the estoppel claim of the unmasked source, rejecting the newspaper's contention that the freedom of press provision of the First Amendment barred the cause of action after the Supreme Court had cleared the way by holding that the First Amendment "does not confer on the press a constitutional right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law."
Alcohol Advisory: Drivers of motor vehicles who are stopped for suspected driving while intoxicated were granted the right to seek legal advice before deciding whether to participate in a sobriety test in Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 310, Minn. 405 247 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1976). The Court reasoned that the potential loss of driving privileges warrants allowing a driver "a reasonable time to contact and talk with counsel" before determining whether to submit to a blood chemical test.
Right Recognized: The right of privacy was recognized by the Minnesota Supreme Court for the first time in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1998). Until the Lake ruling, Minnesota was one of three states that did not recognize a common law claim for privacy, a right that the Court declared to be "an integral part of our humanity." It established three branches of privacy law: intrusion on seclusion, publication of true but embarrassing facts, and misappropriation of identity for commercial purposes.

Fun and Fallibility

This top ten list has been fun to compile. But it is fraught with fallibility. Strong arguments can be made that a number of these cases do not deserve their ranking in the upper echelon of Minnesota jurisprudence and that others merit an illusion. That type of debate is a healthy one because it reflects the vitality of Minnesota law and the important role that the Supreme Court has played in it.

The dialogue should continue into the next century as well. If it does, Minnesota jurisprudence will continue to remain vibrant in the years ahead.

This article originally appeared in Perspectives, December 13, 1999.