| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSJohn Tryggeseth,Appellant, vs. Thermogas, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On appeal from a directed verdict on appellant's breach of contract claim against respondent as to the award of damages, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by (a) suppressing untimely evidence and expert testimony regarding his damages; and (b) denying his request for a continuance. We affirm. = = = = A06-1663 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.A.C. and L.H.S., II, Parents RANDALL, Judge On appeal from the district court's denial of appellant-county's petition to transfer legal custody of the child to the child's father, appellant-county argues that (a) the district court erred in holding that under Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201, subd. 11 (Supp. 2005), it must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement have been corrected; and (b) the district court's findings that respondent-mother corrected the conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement are clearly erroneous. We conclude that the evidence does not support the district court's findings that respondent-mother corrected the conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement. We reverse and remand. = = = = A06-595 Gordon Grannes, et al., Appellants, vs. Red Cedar of Yellow Medicine, Inc., Respondent. PETERSON, Judge On appeal in this dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land, appellants challenge the district court's determination that respondent acquired the property by adverse possession, arguing that (1) the evidence is insufficient to show the elements of continuous, exclusive, and hostile possession for the required period; and (2) this lawsuit is barred under the doctrines of judicial estoppel and res judicata. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-747 Prairie Industrial Park, Inc., Respondent, vs. Jeffry Lahr, et al., Appellants. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a judgment that ownership of a vacated street reverts to respondent, appellants argue that because they owned the property abutting the street when it was vacated, they became the owners of the vacated parcel. We affirm. = = = = A06-286 Dr. Wayne Earl Dahl, Respondent, vs. City of Fridley, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge In this drainage-assessment dispute, the district court, based on negligence occurring in what was an allegedly unrelated city project, vacated the city's assessment of respondent property owner's land. On appeal, the city argues that (1) the vacation was improper; and (2) the district court erred when it determined that the statute of limitations did not bar respondent's negligence claim. Because we conclude that respondent was required to bring his negligence claim as an objection to the special assessment and that respondent's negligence claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, we affirm. = = = = A06-1854 Robert A. Kunshier, Appellant, vs. Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellant challenges the Judicial Appeal Panel's denial of his petition for provisional or conditional discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person. Appellant argues that he produced sufficient evidence to show that he met the statutory requirements for provisional or full discharge pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? 253B.18, subds. 7, 15 (2004). Because the panel's findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, and because appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for provisional or full discharge, we affirm. = = = = A06-601 Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC, challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that the respondent department had jurisdiction to correct an erroneous succession determination and thus to impose on relator the experience rating of its predecessor. Relator also disputes the finding that it was a full successor of Kforce, Inc., its parent. We affirm. = = = = A06-814 Jon E. Bell, Relator, vs. Anamax Transportation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator Jon Bell challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct based on excessive absences and arguing about scheduled work and routes. Finding no merit in relator's assertion that arguing about alternate routes and schedules does not constitute misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A05-2248 John E. Jaskowiak, Relator, vs. CM Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge This matter is before us on remand from the supreme court for reconsideration of this court's decision in Jaskowiak v. CM Constr. Co., 717 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. App. 2006). Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) asserts that it provided relator John Jaskowiak, who failed to participate in the evidentiary hearing in this matter, with notice of how he could request a new evidentiary hearing and that this court erroneously determined that the notice required by statute should have been contained in the unemployment-law judge's decision. In response to this court's order for supplemental briefing on remand, DEED appended to its brief a notice that was sent to Jaskowiak. Although the notice was not formally made a part of the record on appeal, it now appears that notice was given, and we accordingly vacate the instruction to provide notice to Jaskowiak. But the record is still inadequate to permit us to evaluate the finding by the unemployment-law judge that Jaskowiak failed to establish good cause for missing the evidentiary hearing, and we conclude that a remand to DEED is still required. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
