Case Title: List of ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW FILED November 22

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
1. State v. Daniel Edwin Jones A04-1303 Denied 2. In the Matter of the Medical License of Robert J. Woolley, M.D., Date of Birth: 4/17/61, License Number: 33,667 A05-33 Denied 3. State v. Jacob Michael Dolney A04-1431 Denied 4. Willie Eddie Reynolds and Timothy J. Otis v. State A04-2026 and A04-2075 Denied 5. Ronald Peterson, et al. v. BASF Corporation, a foreign corporation A04-2464 Denied 6. State v. Michael Roland Starry A04-2473 Denied 7. King Buachee Lee v. State A04-2470 Denied 8. Sokeng Sroh v. Houth Andrew Eam A05-2 Denied 9. Kathleen Ann Sackett v. Melissa Marie Ehrnreiter A04-1685 Denied 10. Richard McCluhan & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Express Personnel Services of Mankato v. Shari Candies, Inc., U.S. Bank National Association A05-161 Denied 11. State v. Antonio B. Brown A04-1837 Denied 12. State v. Anthony Lee Nelson A04-749 Denied 13. Mark Stephen Caron v. Ruth Ann Caron A04-2461 Denied 14. In re Robert John Barrett, Petitioner. State v. Robert John Barrett A05-1599 Granted 15. Roxanne Benning, as Trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Nicole Lynn Benning v. John Dolan Moore A04-2156 Denied 16. Phillip Ray Clow, Sr. v. State A04-2175 Denied 17. Douglas Allen Crosby v. Catrice Stotesbery A04-2083 Denied 18. State v. Randy Scott Bendzula A05-137 Denied 19. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Lawrence Joseph Fisher A05-579 Denied 20. Sherry Erickson v. City of Orr A05-481 Denied 21. In re Judy Ann Hewitt, Petitioner. State v. Judy Ann Hewitt A05-1685 Denied 22. Clayton Hanks v. State, et al. A05-1461 Denied (11-23-05) 23. Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc., a California corporation A05-1640 The articulation of factors relevant to the determination whether to grant discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01 in Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 645 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2002), was not intended to require the court of appeals to apply those factors in Rule 105.01 cases other than those involving class certification issues. Nor is it our intent here to preclude the court of appeals from utilizing the Gordon factors in its discretion, where appropriate, in cases that do not involve class certification issues. Because it appears the court of appeals may have considered itself bound by the Gordon factors in deciding this case, we vacate the decision and remand for the court to decide the matter in its discretion, consistent with the principles articulated here. Granted/Vacated/Remanded