Court Opinion

ID: 9688995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:15:45.511912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.421586
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I concur with the dissents of Judge Randall and Judge Huspeni.
I am additionally concerned, however, that the majority have made no substantial distinction between the facts in McCormick and the facts in this matter because they cannot. McCormick, a 4-3 decision of this court, was reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The petition for review was denied, which resulted in affirming this court and upholding a summary judgment against the plaintiff. The supreme court’s action must mean something. The majority ignores that supreme court action and now reverses the trial court in this matter, which had relied upon McCormick. This 7-5 decision results in two inconsistent opinions involving substantially the same facts and issues. A dissent in McCormick now becomes the law in the case without overruling McCormick.
The supreme court should review this matter so the bench and bar will not be misled by this court’s handling of two similar cases in what appears to me to be an inconsistent manner.