Legal Opinion

State v. Mulcahy

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 11, 2012No. A11-1136Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CONNOLLY, Judge.

Appellants, a bond company and its surety, challenge the ten percent penalty imposed by the district court on the reinstatement of their bonds under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 702(f). Because district courts have no discretion to forgive or reduce this penalty, we affirm.

*646FACTS

Between May 2010 and November 2010, appellant Freedom Bail Bonds and its surety, appellant Minnesota Surety and Trust Company, posted bonds totaling $55,000 for defendant Jordan Muleahy in connection with four criminal complaints charging him with numerous offenses. He failed to appear for a court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. In re ShetskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  3. Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  4. State v. AsklandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API