Volume 9 — North Western Reporter, Third Series

The tort of negligent selection of an independent contractor exists under the common law of Minnesota. Affirmed.

A 40-day suspension with a requirement to petition for reinstatement is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who has demonstrated a lack of requisite legal skills, asserted numerous frivolous claims, knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, purposely delayed the judicial proceedings, engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, and engaged in behavior that was ultimately prejudicial to the administration of justice—and who has shown a likelihood to continue the misconduct in the future. Suspended.

1. For purposes of a petition for third-party custody, a person is not excluded from the definition of "interested third party" in Minnesota Statutes section 257C.01, subdivision 3 (2022), on the ground that the person is a former foster parent of a child. 2. The placement preferences in Minnesota Statutes section 260.773, subdivision 3 (Supp. 2023), which favor Indian persons and other placements approved by an Indian tribe, do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; motion denied.

The language of Minnesota's dog-bite statute, Minnesota Statutes section 347.22 (2022), plainly, clearly, and unmistakably waives sovereign immunity for claims brought under the statute. Reversed and remanded.

Minnesota Statutes section 609.343, subdivision 1 (2020), prohibits an actor's use of an object to make contact with a complainant's intimate parts. Affirmed.

1. The doctrine of temporary frustration of purpose delineated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 269 is a justification for nonperformance of a contract that is recognized under Minnesota law in certain circumstances. 2. Summary judgment in favor of the landlord was appropriately granted because, even assuming that the doctrine of temporary frustration of purpose may be used as the basis for a breach-of-contract claim and not only as an affirmative defense, the commercial lease tenant's obligation to perform under the lease agreement was merely suspended during the period of temporary frustration, not discharged. Affirmed.

The petition to recall a member of a city council failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance, the constitutional prerequisites to recall an elected municipal official, and consequently failed to lawfully trigger a special recall election under Minnesota Statutes section 410.20 (2022). Reversed.

1. Appellant failed to show that the district court judge was biased. 2. Appellant failed to show that defense counsel was ineffective because counsel did not move to change venue. 3. Appellant's claim that the grand and petit jury pools did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community fails because he did not show that Black persons were underrepresented in the jury pool selection process or that any underrepresentation resulted from systematic exclusion. 4. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of appellant's prior bad acts because the evidence was admissible under the Spreigl exception or as direct or corroborative evidence of a charged crime. 5. The only reasonable inference supported by the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, is that appellant fired the fatal shot. Affirmed.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a property owner would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain without payment a cabin and associated fixtures and furnishings paid for by the property owner's former partner during their cohabitating, marriage-like relationship and intended for their shared use and enjoyment. Affirmed.

In a prosecution for driving after suspension of driving privileges, the admission of a Minnesota Department of Public Safety "certificate of order sent" that is created after the prosecution has begun for the purpose of proving the element that the defendant was served notice of the suspension by mail violates a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation to the extent that the certificate of order sent contains information about mailing that is not in the underlying notice of suspension or other nontestimonial agency record. Reversed and remanded.