The COVID Project
The record
- Jurisdiction
- Minnesota (Dakota County, First Judicial District) · Minnesota
- Level
- Court
- Authority
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02; Minn. Stat. §§ 8.31, 12.31, 12.32; EO 20-99 and EO 20-103
- Issued
- 2020-12-31 Dec. 31, 2020
- Effective
- 2020-12-31
- End
- duration of EO 20-99 and 20-103 as extended (indoor dining reopened Jan. 11, 2021 under EO 21-01) (read as 2021-01-11)
- In force
- Dec. 31, 2020 to Jan. 11, 2021
- Quarters
- 2020 Q42021 Q1
2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
- Limitation types
- Business closureCapacity limit
- Addressees
- specified businesses (the defendant restaurant; by its reasoning every restaurant and bar under EO 20-99)
- Character
- adjudication
- Collection
- Standing duties: Minnesota DUT-MN
Operative words
The actions of the Defendant in this time of unprecedented disease transmission, illness, and death are both against the law and harmful. Their blatant and intentional defiance of the law is directly promoting the spread of Covid-19, exposing their customers and employees to disease.
Penalty
Injunction; contempt (the AG moved for contempt the same day, Dec. 31, 2020); liquor-license suspension or revocation by DPS as the State's letter warned; EO 20-99's gross misdemeanor and § 8.31 civil penalties.
What it required
The court enjoined a Lakeville restaurant from indoor on-premises dining in violation of EO 20-99 as extended by EO 20-103, held that the Emergency Management Act gives the Governor's orders 'the full force and effect of law' (quoting § 12.32), found the State's letter had explained 'that Executive Order 20-99 is mandatory and non-compliance of the requirements can result in suspension or revocation of a liquor license', and rejected the equal-protection and takings defenses ('Executive Order 20-99 does not constitute a taking'). Character as recorded: adjudication (order_penalty layer).
Retrieval noteCourt order posted by the Attorney General with the Dec. 31, 2020 release. The court's memorandum (incorporated as findings) recites the § 12.32 text in full, notes the defendant 'let go' 23 employees because of the closures and that 'None of these harms are overlooked', and concludes that 'Public policy weighs in favor of temporary injunctive relief'. The court's sentence that the defendant was 'exploiting the good conduct of others in the community who are following the law' states the compliance baseline of the regulated class. The AG's Dec. 18, 2020 release reports the TRO granted the same day; the TRO PDF linked there (AlibriDrinkry_TRO.pdf) now returns 404.