When appellate attorney Eric Magnuson was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court on June 3, 2008, he may have become one of the most influential state court jurists in the country. At least that's what a recent study suggests.
The study is called "Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940-2005, by Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen. It shows that Minnesota has one of the country's most influential state supreme courts, based on the number of times its decisions have been followed by courts in other states. Generally, one state's courts are not obligated to follow the decisions of another state's supreme court. But decisions are sometimes followed, if the reasoning is persuasive.
Since 1940, the Minnesota Supreme Court has handed down a whopping 774 decisions that were later followed by courts in other states, and 55 of those have been followed by at least three courts outside Minnesota. Eleven decisions have been particularly influential, meaning they've been followed by at least five out-of-state courts.
Many of the Minnesota Supreme Court's most influential decisions do not involve the kind of splashy subjects that grab headlines. In fact, several have come in insurance coverage cases. For example, the state court's most influential decision is Miller v. Shugart (1982), written by Justice John E. Simonett. There, the court approved of a specific type of settlement involving insurance coverage. Specifically, the court decided that an insured defendant can agree that the plaintiff should receive a money judgment, while the plaintiff releases the insured defendant from liability. Then, the plaintiff can try to collect the judgment from the defendant's insurer. The Miller v. Shugart decision is so well-known that the shorthand term "Miller-Shugart settlement" is commonly used by attorneys all over the country.
Other highly-influential Minnesota Supreme Court decisions relating to insurance coverage include Schmidt v. Clothier (1983), Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1994), and 3M v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (1990).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has also made its mark on constitutional search-and-arrest issues. In State v. Oevering (1978), the court held that police officers performed a constitutionally valid search when they ordered a hospital to draw blood from an unconscious driver following a fatal collision. The officers did not have a warrant, the unconscious driver obviously had not given his consent, and he had not been arrested. Oevering has been followed by six other states' courts.
Among the Minnesota Supreme Court's highly-influential decisions, the most recent is In re Linehan (1999). In Linehan, the Court upheld the Minnesota's Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, which established a new civil commitment procedure for individuals who have engaged in harmful sexual conduct, manifested a mental disorder, and are likely to engage in harmful sexual conduct again in the future. The high court held that the new statute was not "arbitrary," but rather that it served a compelling state interest and was "narrowly tailored" to meet those interests. Courts in five other states have followed Linehan.
The study does not offer a conclusion about what makes a state's supreme court influential, but one thing is clear: population is not a factor. With the exception of California (which has the most influential supreme court), states with influential high courts are mostly modestly-populated Western and Midwestern states, like Minnesota, Washington, Colorado, and Iowa. The decisions of big southern states' courts, such as those of Texas and Florida are not particularly persuasive to other courts around the country. Neither are the decisions of supreme courts of highly-populated states lying to Minnesota's east, like New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
When asked, the study's co-author, Jake Dear, agreed that court's influence probably has nothing to do with population. Political influence and economic strength probably are not factors, either. Rather, Dear hypothesized, a state's supreme court will have influence if it analyzes legal issues thoroughly and writes its decisions clearly.
In other words, it seems that the best courts that are also the most influential. Sounds like Chief Justice Magnuson has some big shoes to fill.
Max Heerman practices law in Minneapolis. He is a shareholder at the law firm of Briggs and Morgan, P.A. He has contributed articles to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and Minnesota Law & Politics.
Back to Articles
