Journal of Law & Practice

By: Professor Mike Steenson^[1]

I.  Introduction

Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.,^[2] arose out of the death of 24-year-old Michael Riley.^[3] Mr. Riley (“Riley”) jumped from a bridge after being stopped for DWI by a Minnesota State Highway Patrol officer who arrested, but did not handcuff Riley.^[4]   His family and girlfriend sued Twin Town Bowl under the Civil Damages Act,^[5] alleging that Riley was illegally served alcohol there, that the illegal sale led to his intoxication, and that his intoxication caused his death.^[6]   Read the rest of this entry »

By: Ted Sampsell-Jones[1]

I. Introduction

American criminal trials are governed by a variety of rules that protect criminal defendants. Such rules protect both innocent defendants and guilty defendants. Protection of the latter is a necessary but perhaps regrettable consequence of protecting the former. Pro-defense legal rules occasionally result in guilty defendants going free, but that result is said to be warranted because the same rules protect innocents from wrongful convictions. The tradeoff is justified by the traditional Anglo-American principle, made famous by Blackstone: “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”[2] Read the rest of this entry »

By: Lindsay W. DavisY

I. Introduction

This article explores the public policy considerations surrounding criminal conviction record sealing and the effect of two recent appellate decisions on criminal expungement law in Minnesota.[1] Legal Aid and other service providers for Minnesota’s low-income population have a strong interest in adequate post-conviction remedies, as individuals with criminal records have a very difficult time obtaining stable housing and employment. Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services participated as amicus curiae when, for the first time in over 25 years, the Minnesota Supreme Court accepted a case centered on a court’s inherent authority to seal criminal records.[2] Read the rest of this entry »

By: Markus C. Yira^[1]

Introduction

In May 2008, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed survivors’ economic loss benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minnesota Statute Sections 65B.41-71 (2006) (“the Act”).[2]  In Perry, the Supreme Court narrowly defined the term “dependent” as used in the act to mean only a spouse or child; precluding a decedent’s live-in girlfriend from recovering survivors’ economic loss benefits under the Act.[3] Read the rest of this entry »