Cited by

at *2 ( (internal quotation marks omitted)).

(stating that the court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent).

d 626, 636 n.18 (Minn. App. 2025) ( (“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent, as it has repeatedly acknowledged.”)); see also Jensen v. 1985 Ferrari, n.21 (Minn. App. 2020) (explainin g that, “as an error-correcting court, we apply existing precedent” (citing Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-

(explaining that “[t]he court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent, as it has repeatedly acknowledged[,]” and that “[a] defendant has a due process right not to be tried or convicted of a criminal charge if he is legally incompetent” (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171–72 (1975)

.” (emphasis added)); (“The 24 court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent, as it has repeatedly acknowledged.”); State v. Final Exit Network, Inc. , (“We are bound by Minnesota Supreme Court precedent.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Turnipseed and its progeny—including Fox—remain good law, and “[t]he court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent, as it has repeatedly acknowledged.”

(citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171- 72 (1975)).

(“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent.”).

11 (“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent.”).

d 342, 346 (Minn. 2018).

(noting that this court “is bound by supreme court precedent”).

(“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent.”).

“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent.”

18 (“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent, as it has repeatedly acknowledged.”).

in legal jeopardy, and (3) “she decided on her own that it would be to Bellazan’s benefit for her not to testify.” He argues that, based on the evidence, “it is pure speculation to suggest that the phone calls were the reason [CG] did not appear” and that “[t]he district court’s contrary conclusion is erroneous because it is against the greater weight of the evidence.” n.6 (Minn. 2018) (stating that “preponderance of the evidence” means the “greater weight of the evidence”).

(“ The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent.”).

(recognizing 6 that the court of appeals is “an error-correcting court” that cannot “overturn” supreme court precedent (quotation omitted)), aff’d

(concluding that this court erred when it did not adhere to supreme court precedent governing the burden of proof).

when the statement or ruling was necessary to the decision in the case”); (“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent, as it has repeatedly acknowledged.”) d at 488–89); see also Mesenburg v. Comm’r of Pub.

see Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2 (“The court of 5 This argument is consistent with the evidence Bushmills offered in support of dismissing Star Bank’s motion for summary judgment , which we, like the district court , find insufficient.

601, 602 (Minn. 1934), (“Where a party having the burden of proof with respect to a particular issue fails to sustain such burden, decision as to such issue must go against him.”); Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co., 215 N.W.

(explaining that the Minnesota Supreme Court is the supreme authority on Minnesota law).

The “determination of which party bears the burden of proof[] and the interpretation of the competency rule of 7 procedure are questions of law that we review de novo.”

See State v. Curtis , (recognizing our repeated acknowledgement that the 8 court of appeals “is bound by supreme court precedent”).

3, .44; Kramer, d at 501; see also Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (explaining that “when a court of last resort has construed the language of a law,” we presume that the legislature intends for the same construction to apply in 18 subsequent laws on the same subject matter); (explaining that “[t]he court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent”).5 Next, the department argues that deaths by suicide resulting from PTSD must be excluded from the definition of “killed in the line of duty” because the l

The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has considered this legal argument and declined to revise or abrogate Linehan, see Ince, d at 22- 24, and this court is bound to follow that precedent

(“The court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent .

And we are bound by the decisions of the supreme court , State v. Curtis , and by the precedential opinions of our own court , Jackson ex rel.

(“[W]hen the supreme court has already construed a statute, this court is bound by that interpretation.”), 13 rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

State v. Curtis , (citing Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 171-72 (1975); ).

(discussing Minn. R. Crim.

See State v. Curtis , (explaining that the court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent).

d 342, 346 (Minn. 2018).

See State v. Curtis, 6 (Minn .

It is true that we are “bound by supreme court precedent.” State v. Final Exit Network, Inc.

d 342, 348 (Minn. 2018).

State v. Curtis , (discussing Minn. R. Crim.

But because both the district court and this court are boun d by supreme court precedent, State v. Curtis , d 342, 346 (Minn. 2018), and because one owner of riparian rights may not unduly interfere with another’s enjoyment of riparian rights, we must reverse and remand.