| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSJaclyn R. Mugge, petitioner,Respondent, vs. Alan I. Mugge, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant-husband Alan I. Mugge challenges the district court's amended findings and order valuing and distributing his business. Because the district court did not consider the value of appellant's personal services to the business or include a key-person discount, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-237 Patrick Murphy, Appellant, vs. Superior National Bank, et al., Respondents. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Patrick Murphy challenges the summary judgment granted in favor of respondents Superior National Bank and its president Cyrus Gray, Jr. The district court concluded that prior mortgage foreclosure proceedings precluded this action for fraud and breach-of-fiduciary duty against Superior National and Gray. Because Murphy raised and could have fully litigated the issues of fraud and breach-of-fiduciary duty in the foreclosure proceedings, we affirm. = = = = A06-247 Sean K. McGinity, Relator, vs. The Minnesota Orchestral Association, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from a decision of an unemployment law judge that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his employment and no exception from the rule that an employee who quits is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits applies to relator. We affirm. = = = = A06-179 Michael A. Chung, Relator, vs. SMSC Gaming Enterprises, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge By writ of certiorari, pro se relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's findings and those findings support the conclusion that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-240 Andrew Barnes, Appellant, vs. Derek Dees, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on the emergency rule. We reverse and remand for a new trial. = = = = A06-505 Chester Creek Technologies, Inc., Appellant, vs. George H. Kessler, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge This appeal is from a judgment and order denying posttrial motions in a case involving an insolvent corporation and its two primary shareholders. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support respondent's claims of (1) promissory estoppel; (2) interference with prospective advantage; and (3) unjust enrichment. Appellant also claims that (4) respondent obtained double recovery for the same harm when he was awarded damages for both interference with prospective advantage and promissory estoppel; and (5) the jury instructions were erroneous. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A06-487 Mate Precision Tooling, Appellant, vs. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, NS/I Mechanical Contracting Company, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order denying appellant leave to amend the complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of respondent on appellant's breach-of-contract and negligence claims. Appellant also argues that the district court erred by failing to address appellant's motion to amend the scheduling order. We affirm. = = = = A06-903 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L.H. and M.C., Parents. WORKE, Judge On appeal in this termination-of-parental-rights matter, appellant-mother argues that the district court erred by (1) terminating her parental rights involuntarily when she also petitioned to terminate her parental rights voluntarily; and (2) terminating her parental rights involuntarily while terminating respondent-father's parental rights voluntarily. We affirm. = = = = A06-457 Shawn Davis, et al., Respondents, vs. Bernard Walter, defendant and third party plaintiff, Appellant, vs. Paul Walter, et al., third party defendants, Joseph Bartholomew, third party defendant, Respondent. ROSS, Judge This case involves Shawn Davis's fall from his father-in-law's loft while Davis helped remove debris from the loft. A jury found that Davis and his wife may recover damages in tort from his father-in-law, Bernard Walter, after the district court dismissed Walter's claims against three third-party defendants who were also helping him remove the debris. On appeal from the denial of his alternative motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, Walter argues that the evidence does not support the jury verdict because he did not owe a duty to Davis and that Davis assumed all risk of any injury. Walter further argues that the district court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on primary assumption of risk, by dismissing Walter's claims against third-party defendant Joseph Bartholomew, and by admitting improper evidence of habit. Because the record demonstrates that Walter owed a duty to Davis and supports the legal determination that Davis did not fully assume the risk of injury, and Walter has not established grounds for a new trial, we affirm. = = = A05-2490 Jeffrey Kuberka, Respondent, vs. Anoka Mediation, Inc., et al., Appellants. ROSS, Judge On appeal from an order denying summary judgment on grounds of quasi-judicial immunity, Kathleen Brandvold and Anoka Mediation, Inc., argue that the district court erred by holding that immunity does not preclude civil liability for Brandvold's conduct as a custody evaluator. Because Jeffrey Kuberka alleged misconduct by Brandvold that occurred before she became the custody evaluator, and because genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether she fraudulentlysecured the position and whether she acted outside the scope of any proper court appointment, we affirm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Lawyer representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
