STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent, v. JABARI ADISA MCALLISTER, Appellant.
No. A13-2112
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April 8, 2015.
862 N.W.2d 49
observations about the beating, McMillan was “not going to live any longer.”
Third, although defense counsel was not able to effectively counter all of the evidence presented through the allegedly inadmissible portions of the recordings, he was able to counter some of it, including the evidence about the gun. Defense counsel repeatedly highlighted, for example, that there was no evidence tying McAllister to the gun and that the State had failed to prove that the gun was the murder weapon because thе results from ballistic testing were inconclusive.
In sum, after reviewing the trial record, we conclude that, even if the district court erred when it failed to suppress portions of McAllister‘s recorded statements, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because thе verdict was surely unattributable to the error.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm McAllister‘s conviction of first-degree premeditated murder.
Affirmed.
MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, LLC, Appellant.
No. A13-2112.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April 8, 2015.
John P. Borger, Leita Walker, Faеgre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Randy M. Lebedoff, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.
Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Newspaper Association.
OPINION
LILLEHAUG, Justice.
A Star Tribune reporter submitted a request for data to the Minnesota Jоint Underwriting Association (“MJUA“). In response, MJUA sought a favorable advisory opinion from the Commissioner of the Department of Administration on whether MJUA is a “state agency” subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA“). The Commissioner declined MJUA‘s request for an opiniоn. MJUA then sought declaratory relief in Ramsey County District Court. The court granted the Star Tribune‘s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, holding that MJUA is a state agency. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that MJUA is not a state agency. We granted review on that issue. Because we hold that MJUA is not a state agency subject to the MGDPA, we affirm the court of appeals.
I.
MJUA was created by the Legislature to provide insurance for “any person or entity unable to obtain insurance through ordinary methods,” so long as the insurance is either “required by stаtute, ordinance, or otherwise required by law,” or “necessary to earn a livelihood or conduct a business and serves a public purpose, including, but not limited to, liquor liability.”
As a condition to obtaining and retaining a license to write insurance, all insurers “authorized to write property and casualty insurance and personal injury liability insurance” in Minnesota must be members of MJUA.
MJUA is primarily financed by policyhоlder premiums. MJUA members are responsible for losses and expenses beyond those financed by the premiums.
On January 4, 2013, a reporter from the Star Tribune submitted a request for data to MJUA. The Star Tribune sought summary data on the number of providers covered by the MJUA “down to the county lеvel, broken down by the classes covered by the MJUA.” The Star Tribune identified the following classes: physicians and other health care providers; nursing homes; foster care providers; garagekeepers; truth-in-housing inspectors; and annual, seasonal, event, and single day liquor providеrs.
In response, MJUA sought a written advisory opinion from the Commissioner of the Department of Administration on whether MJUA was subject to the MGDPA. The Commissioner declined to issue an advisory opinion, citing two previous advisory opinions that, in the Commissioner‘s view, resolved the question against MJUA‘s рosition.
The Star Tribune then renewed its request and sought additional data, including the names and addresses of MJUA policyholders that are not individuals and any data submitted to the Minnesota Department of Commerce by MJUA since 2010. In response, MJUA commenced a lawsuit for declaratory relief. MJUA sought a declaration that it was not a “government entity” subject to the MGDPA. The Star Tribune filed an answer and a counterclaim, seeking an order compelling MJUA to comply with the MGDPA and pay exemplary damages for its “willful violation” of the law.
MJUA moved to dismiss the Star Tribune‘s counterclaim and for judgment on the plеadings, arguing that it is not subject to the MGDPA. The Star Tribune also filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that MJUA is subject to the MGDPA.
The district court granted the Star Tribune‘s motion in part and ordered MJUA to comply with the MGDPA. The court held that MJUA was subject to the MGDPA for two reasons: (1) the definition of “state agency” in the MGDPA is broad; and (2) a mаjority of MJUA‘s directors are appointed by the Commissioner of Commerce, “thus allowing for state voting control of the entity.” The district court declined to award attorneys’ fees, costs, and a civil penalty to the Star Tribune, however, because the controversy appeared “to be founded in good faith.”
MJUA successfully moved the district court for entry of judgment and for a stay of enforcement pending appeal. MJUA then appealed to the court of appeals. The Star Tribune cross-appealed, challenging the district court‘s decision not to grant judgment on the pleadings on its counterclaim.
The court of appeals reversed in part. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass‘n v. Star Tribune Media Co., LLC, 849 N.W.2d 421 (Minn.App.2014). The court of appeals held that MJUA is not a government entity subject to the MGDPA.1 Id. at 426. The court of appeals first rejected MJUA‘s argument that it is not a state agency because it is an “association,” a classification not specifically included in the definition of “state agency.” Id. at 423. The
We granted the Star Tribune‘s petition for review on the issue of whether MJUA is subject to the MGDPA.
II.
Under the MGDPA, all “government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unlеss classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential.”
The MGDPA defines “government entity” as “a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision.”
We have discussed the definition of “government entity” in the MGDPA on two occasions. First, in Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362, 366 (Minn.1998), we held that a municipal power agеncy was not subject to the MGDPA and Minnesota‘s Open Meeting Law. Analyzing the enabling legislation, we found persuasive the fact that municipal power agencies had the authority to manage their property and affairs “in the same manner as a private corporation pursuant to their bylaws.” Id. Second, in Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 279 (Minn.2004), we held that the University of Minnesota Board of Regents was a “state agency” because the statute specifically included “the University of Minnesota.”
Neither case offers particular guidance on the question before us. But, as was true in each case, whether a particular entity is a “government entity” subject to the MGDPA is a question of law subject to de novo review. Bd. of Regents, 683 N.W.2d at 279; Boyne, 578 N.W.2d at 364; see also Navarre v. S. Wash. Cnty. Schs., 652 N.W.2d 9, 22 (Minn.2002).
Applying the definition of “government entity,” MJUA is clearly not a political subdivision or a statewide system. See
Applying the definition of “state agency” in
We hold that MJUA, clearly and unambiguously, is not a state agency. MJUA is legally organized as an involuntary association of private insurers. See
Thus understood, it is not surprising that the term “association” is not among the entities listed in the MGDPA‘s definition of “state agency.”2 Nor is “association” listed in
Beyond its name and form of organization, MJUA does not have the typical indicia of a state agency. MJUA is financed entirely by its members and policyholders, not by the State.
The Star Tribune would have us interpret the term “state agency” to mean any state-level entity created by the State that performs functions for the public bеnefit. The Star Tribune argues that we so held in State ex rel. Univ. of Minn. v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259, 220 N.W. 951 (1928), decided more than half a century before the MGDPA was enacted. In Chase, the Star Tribune asserts, we held that “the ‘ordinary and functional sense’ of the term ‘agency of the state’ was ‘everything in the way of ... [an] institution used as a means to any end of state government.‘”
The Star Tribune reads Chase too broadly. In that case, we interpreted a statute conferring power to a State commission to “supervise and control” expenditures by all “departments, and agencies of the state government and of the institutions under their control.” Id. at 262, 220 N.W. at 952 (emphasis added). Because the statutory grant of power included “institutions under [the government‘s] control,” we reasoned that the “obvious intention is to include everything in the way of department or institution used as a means to any end of state government.” Id. The MGDPA contains no such language, and Chase thus provides no guidance for defining “state agency” under the MGDPA.
The Commissioner also has power over MJUA‘s “plan of operation.”
Finally, the Star Tribune urges us to defer to advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration that MJUA is a state agency subject to the MGDPA. See Op. Minn. Dep‘t Admin. No. 96-005 (Jan. 25, 1996); Op. Minn. Dep‘t Admin. No. 04-071 (Nov. 3, 2004).
In sum, although MJUA was created by state statute, it is not a state agency. It is an involuntary association of insurance company members providing coverage in the highly-regulated insurance market.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court of appeals.
Affirmed.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Gary E. MITCHELL, et al., Appellants, John Doe, et al., Defendants.
No. A14-1037.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
March 30, 2015.