| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSAnnette Kleinschrodt,Relator, vs. Independent School District No. 2886, Glenville-Emmons, Minnesota, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Annette Kleinschrodt challenges the decision by respondent Independent School District No. 2886 to not renew her probationary contract. We affirm. = = = = A05-1608 Derek A. Hebrink, Relator, vs. Crows Nest Programs, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the senior unemployment-review judge (SURJ) that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record reasonably supports the SURJ’s findings and those findings support the conclusion that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm. On appeal, relator moves to strike the appendix to respondent employer’s brief. Because the appendix contains evidence that was properly before the SURJ, we deny the motion. = = = A05-1703 In re the Marriage of: Daniel Frank Ostrander, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Shannon Marie Ostrander, n/k/a Shannon Marie Fragmin, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant-mother challenges the district court’s modification of joint physical custody to give respondent-father sole physical custody of the parties’ three children. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that mother’s out-of-state move constituted a change in circumstances, that modification was in the children’s best interests, and that the children were integrated into father’s home with mother’s consent, we affirm. = = = = A05-1725 In re the Marriage of: Patrick John Nickleson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kelly Jane Nickleson, Respondent. PARKER, Judge On appeal from an order modifying his child-support obligation, Patrick Nickleson argues that the district court erred by using a cash-flow method to calculate his income rather than the statutory method detailed in Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(f) (2004), and further erred by overstating his income and failing to include allowable deductions when calculating his net income. Because the district court properly used a cash-flow method to determine Nickleson’s income and did not err in calculating his income, we affirm. = = = = A05-1771 Roger T. Collins, M.D., et al., Appellants, vs. Terrance Buus, operating under the assumed name of C B Construction Co., Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from summary judgment in a construction dispute, appellant homeowners argue that (1) a transcript of their oral report of damage to their home, which was received by the contractor that built the home, satisfies the written-notice requirement of Minn. Stat. § 327A.03(a) (2004); and (2) actual notice should be sufficient to comply with the statutory notice requirement. Because, under the plain language of the statute, liability does not extend to damage that is not reported in writing and appellants did not report damage in writing, the district court did not err in concluding that appellants cannot maintain a statutory cause of action, and we affirm. = = = = A05-1821 In the Matter of the Application for PERA Local Government Correctional Service Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Paul Martinez MINGE, Judge Relator Paul Martinez appeals denial by the board of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) of his claim for duty-related disability benefits arguing that PERA misinterpreted Minn. Stat. § 353E.06 (2004) and unreasonably denied him such benefits. We agree with relator and reverse. = = = = A05-1888 City of Waite Park, petitioner, Respondent, Richard G. Heid, et al., intervenors, Respondents, vs. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, Appellant. RANDALL, Judge This is an appeal from the grant of respondent-city’s petition for mandamus to compel appellant Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to allow annexation of certain land. OAH argues (a) that a mandamus action is not the appropriate mechanism to resolve the annexation dispute between it and respondent-city; (b) mandamus is inappropriate because OAH has no duty to order annexation based solely upon respondent-city’s petition for annexation; (c) the record does not support intervenors’ assertion that they suffered a public wrong; (d) respondent-city has an adequate non-mandamus remedy; (e) the record does not support respondent-city’s claim for a summary annexation. We affirm. = = = = A05-2031 Lyle D. Thomason, Appellant, vs. Sappi-Cloquet, LLC, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge In an appeal from a judgment and denial of posttrial motions, appellant Lyle D. Thomason challenges the district court’s evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of privileged documents and prior workers’ compensation judges’ decisions in his trial for retaliatory discharge. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding, on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and work product, privileged documents that were inadvertently disclosed and by excluding two prior workers’ compensation judges’ decisions. Because the documents are privileged and work product and because the workers’ compensation judges’ decisions are not relevant, we affirm. = = = = A05-2051 New Hope One LLC, Respondent, vs. Nielsen's Equipment & Design, Inc., et al., Defendants, ViroGen, Inc., Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the summary judgment ordering its eviction and denial of its motion for a continuance. Because the lease that governed appellant’s subtenancy was terminated as a result of the mortgage foreclosure, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on respondent’s eviction petition. Similarly, because appellant did not have a valid lease, the district court did not err in dismissing appellant’s counterclaims nor did it abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion for a continuance. = = = = A05-2277 Ammanuel Ambaye, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the decision affirming his obligation to repay the Department of Employment and Economic Development (department) the benefits he received as a result of his misrepresentations and the statutory penalty assessed on those benefits. Because the decision was not made on unlawful procedure or affected by an error of law, and because it is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. = = = = A05-2298 E. S., a minor, by her parents and natural guardians, S.S. and C. S., Appellant, vs. Independent School District No. 271, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s findings in the Amended Order Approving Minor Settlement that the damages to be received in this case are not the result of a physical injury or sickness, and, therefore, the damages are not excludable from appellant’s gross income under the Internal Revenue Code. Appellant contends that because there was no contested issue before the district court, its findings constitute an advisory opinion. Because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide issues for which there was no justiciable controversy, we reverse and remand. = = = = A05-2350 In re Referendum to Amend City of Grand Rapids, Minnesota Municipal Elections Ordinance No. 04-08-11 TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge The City of Grand Rapids seeks review of the district court’s order allowing a referendum on a city ordinance that rescinds the use of odd-year elections and establishes even-year elections for city-council members and the mayor. Because ordering appropriate relief was within the district court’s discretion under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2004) and because allowing respondent Juan Lazo an opportunity to cure the petition for a referendum was appropriate relief for the city’s omissions, we affirm. = = = = A05-2386 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of S. B. and D. W., Parents. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant guardian ad litem challenges the district court’s order transferring custody of a minor child to his grandmother. Because the evidence does not clearly and convincingly show that the transfer is in the child’s best interests, we reverse and remand. = = = = A05-2432 In re the Marriage of: Richard K. Burtness, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Janine Burtness, f/k/a Janine Ginter, f/k/a Janine Klow, Respondent. WORKE, Judge In this dissolution matter, appellant argues that the record does not support the district court’s findings regarding the value of certain assets and appellant’s income, and the award of attorney fees to respondent. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings regarding the value of assets and appellant’s income, and did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees, we affirm. = = = = A05-2500 In re the Marriage of: Virginia E. Westland, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Stanley K. Westland, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellant-wife challenges the district court’s order reducing her spousal-maintenance award and its denial of need-based attorney fees. By notice of review, respondent-husband argues that the district court clearly erred in its finding of husband’s income. Husband also argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his various motions challenging the 2005 order and in setting the effective date of the modification of spousal maintenance. With respect to wife’s claims, the district court’s findings and conclusion of law that there was no substantial change in circumstances are inconsistent with its simultaneous conclusion and order reducing spousal maintenance. Similarly, the district court’s findings that wife was entitled to need-based attorney fees lack sufficient specificity and are inconsistent with its order denying attorney fees. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court’s reconsideration of these two issues. With respect to husband’s claims, because husband failed to provide the district court with information necessary for it to properly assess his income, we affirm on this issue. Because the district court properly applied the law and properly exercised its discretion, we likewise affirm the district court’s denial of husband’s motions challenging its 2005 order. Because we are remanding the spousal-maintenance issue, we do not reach the propriety of the effective date of the modification of spousal maintenance. = = = = A06-331 Luis Antonio Serna, Appellant, vs. Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the denial of his request for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous person, appellant argues that the denial should be reversed because he showed that the discharge conditions provide a reasonable degree of protection to the public and will enable him to successfully adjust to the community. We affirm. = = = = A06-491 Dirk David Kemper, Appellant, vs. Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the judicial appeal panel’s decision to dismiss his petition for reconsideration of the commissioner’s denial of his request for transfer to an open hospital, or for a provisional or full discharge from his civil commitment as mentally ill and dangerous, appellant argues that (1) the state should have the burden of proving that he is in need of commitment and it failed to meet that burden, and (2) he could be treated more effectively in a less-restrictive setting. Because the evidence as a whole supports the appeal panel’s findings, 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. |
