| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSAngela M. Manderfeld,Relator, vs. Amy Nelson, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge Angela Manderfeld appeals, by writ of certiorari, an unemployment law judge's order disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Manderfeld quit her job, and no exceptions to disqualification apply, we affirm. = = = = A06-784 In re the Minor Child E.S.J.L. M.M. et al., co-petitioners, Appellants, S.C.-M. (Deceased), Co-petitioner, vs. J.M.J., f/k/a J.M.L., Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On appeal from the district court's order awarding respondent-mother sole legal and physical custody, appellants-paternal grandparents argue that (a) they had standing to seek custody after making a prima facie case that they were de facto custodians and/or interested third parties; (b) they made a prima facie case for modification of custody based on integration and endangerment; (c) they made a prima facie showing that awarding them sole physical custody is in the child's best interest; (d) the district court should have appointed a GAL for the child; and (e) the district court should have recognized grandparents' status as joint legal custodians. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-647 Shari Mathena, Respondent, vs. Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge This appeal arises out of the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent Shari Mathena against her underinsured motorist insurer, appellant Allstate Insurance Company. Appellant argues that the district court erred (1) by determining that it waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely intervene in the underlying action between its insured and the tortfeasor; and (2) by granting respondent interest accruing from the date of the arbitration award. We affirm. = = = = A06-193 Printing Resources, Inc., Respondent, vs. Robert Kartarik, d/b/a Kartarik Graphics and Printing, defendant and third party plaintiff, Respondent, vs. ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc., third party defendant, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc. challenges the district court's legal conclusion that, as Robert Kartarik's principal, it is responsible to pay the full balance on a contract for appellant's benefit entered into between Kartarik and Printing Resources, Inc. We affirm. = = = = A06-1341 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of K.H., P.N. and M.M., Parents. KLAPHAKE, Judge In this termination of parental rights case, appellant K.H. claims that the evidence does not support termination of her parental rights to her children, C.D. and C.H., under Minn. Stat. ? 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), (5) (2004). Because we conclude that the evidence supports both statutory bases for termination and that termination is in the children's best interests, we affirm. = = = = A06-603 In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey J. Pierson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Janell H. Johnson, Respondent, and Dakota County, intervenor, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Jeffrey Pierson challenges the district court's adoption of a child support magistrate's decision that determined respondent Janell Johnson owed child support arrears for the period from December 2002 to the date of the order, but that arrears were not proven for the period prior to December 2002. Because the magistrate failed to make adequate findings to support its ultimate conclusions so as to allow this court to properly review the matter, we reverse and remand. = = = = A06-1493 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.M.K. and R.R.R., Parents. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order terminating her parental rights, appellant-mother argues that the record does not support the district court's determinations that she is palpably unfit, that she has refused to comply with the duties of the parent-child relationship, and that termination of her parental rights is in the child's best interests. We affirm. = = = = A06-1049 Terri Wittwer, Appellant, vs. Enbridge, Inc., et al., Defendants, Murphy Bros., Inc., Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's summary judgment on all emotional-distress claims, restricting recovery in trespass to property damage, and denying her motion to amend the complaint to include a claim for invasion of privacy. Because the district court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-254 Michael Faber, Relator, vs. City of Crystal, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges a hearing officer's determination that outdoor storage on his property is unlawful because he failed to apply for a conditional use permit prior to the property's rezoning to a residential classification in 2004. Since the city failed to present any evidence that outdoor storage was improper prior to 1981 zoning changes requiring a permit for such use, and because relator presented uncontroverted evidence that outdoor storage has consistently existed on the property since the 1950s, we reverse. = = = = A06-631 Dennis and Carmen Larrison, as parents and natural guardians of their son, Christopher Larrison, Respondents, vs. John Marshall High School, et al., Appellants. HUDSON, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Appellants argue that (1) they are entitled to vicarious official immunity because respondents' negligent-supervision claim is based on a teacher's actions which conform with appellants' attendance protocol, and (2) there are no issues of material fact regarding the scope of appellants' attendance protocol. We reverse. = = = = A06-547 Shane Bakke, Relator, vs. Ancient Arts Brick & Stone Masonry, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct for failing to sign a written warning. Relator argues that (1) he was discharged from employment when the employer called the police to have him removed from the premises; (2) his failure to sign the warning was not based on insubordination but was based on the fact that he had not been given the company policies regarding mandatory overtime; (3) the ULJ did not give sufficient consideration to the appeal because he made his decision the day after the hearing; and (4) he should qualify for benefits because another ULJ determined that another employee (relator's brother), who was discharged under essentially identical circumstances, was qualified for benefits. We affirm. = = = = A06-681 Wayne D. Shipley, Appellant, vs. Independent School District 197 a/k/a Mendota Heights School District, et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his claims against respondents for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellant argues that, because he does not challenge the nonrenewel of his probationary employment, but rather is alleging that respondents violated statutory obligations and school district policies, the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims. We affirm. = = = = A06-514 In re the Marriage of: Eric Thomas Amundson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Rachel Louise Amundson, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant-father challenges the district court's decision denying appellant's request for sole physical custody of the parties' children and setting appellant's child-support obligation at the guidelines amount. Appellant argues that the district court erred when it (1) determined that the parties' extrajudicial agreement was breached and abandoned; (2) did not require the parties to participate in dispute resolution; (3) overstated appellant's income; and (4) denied appellant's motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing. Because the district court erred in its calculation of appellant's monthly net income for child-support purposes and failed to make express findings regarding health-insurance coverage for the children as required by Minn. Stat. ? 518.171, subd. 1(a) (2004), we reverse and remand on these issues. As to the other issues raised in this appeal, we affirm. = = = = A06-1073 Tom Vogel, et al., Appellants, vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Respondents. DIETZEN, Judge Appellants challenge the district court order and resulting judgment dismissing their claim, arguing that the district court erred in finding that appellants did not specifically request homeowner's insurance from respondent Larson, and in not making findings on respondent's alleged failure to perform certain statutory obligations. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-242 In re the Marriage of: Craig James Beuning, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Alessandra Lizabeth Beuning, Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge On appeal in this child-support dispute, appellant argues that (1) despite the fact that he has been released from the workhouse, his appeal is not moot; (2) the district court's findings were inadequate to justify his incarceration; (3) the district court improperly denied him an opportunity to present evidence at the contempt hearing; (4) the district court's ruling was internally inconsistent regarding his work release from incarceration; (5) the district court improperly used its civil contempt power to punish him for prior purported misconduct; and (6) this court's prior refusal to address this matter via a writ of habeas corpus was erroneous. We conclude that this appeal is not moot, address the issues raised on their merits, and reverse. = = = = A06-1398 A06-1487 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J.M.M. (A06-1487) and K.L.M. (A06-1398), Parents. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellants J.M.M. (father) and K.L.M. (mother) challenge the district court's termination of their parental rights; the court applied a presumption of palpable unfitness based on a prior involuntary termination of parental rights, found that appellants failed to rebut the presumption, and also found that termination was in the best interests of the five children at issue. Because the record supports the presumption and contains evidence sufficient to support the district court's findings, we affirm. = = = = A06-516 In re the Marriage of: Krista JoAnn Czech, f/k/a Krista JoAnn Broberg, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Kevin Michael Czech, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge In this property division dispute, appellant Kevin Czech challenges the district court's implementation of the portion of the divorce judgment relating to appellant's Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) benefits. Because the divorce judgment confirms the district court's rationale in awarding respondent Krista Czech a share of disability benefits, as well as normal retirement benefits, 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. |
