Minnesota Supreme Court, 1998

Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television

Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 23, 1998 · Kathleen
576 N.W.2d 746; 1998 Minn. LEXIS 232; 1998 WL 208689 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John P. Borger, Eric E. Jorstad, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, Susanna M. Lowy, Anthony M. Bongiomo, CBS Broadcasting, Inc., New York City, for defendants-appellants., Paul A. Sortland, Sortland Law Office, Minneapolis, Paul W. Flower, Brian E. Stevens, Flower, Roby, Schütz & Stevens, PLLC, Brooklyn Center, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1998, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of WCCO Television, et al. for further review of the Minnesota Court of Appeals order filed December 30, 1997, denying their motion for discretionary review and the order filed January 14, 1998, dismissing an appeal from an order of the district court be, and the same is, granted for the limited purpose of (a) vacating the January 14, 1998 order dismissing the appeal, and (b) remanding that case to the court of appeals for review of the appeal on the merits. Because petitioners have a right to directly appeal the order of the district court, there is no reason to address or decide whether, absent that right, the court of appeals’ order denying discretionary review was an abuse of discretion. See Minn.Stat. § 554.02, subd. 2(1).

BY THE COURT:

/s/Kathleen A Blatz Kathleen A Blatz Chief Justice

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.