| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSJohn McCarty, et al.,Respondents, vs. Carl Buechler, et al., Appellants. PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from a judgment that (1) dismisses the parties' claims and counterclaims, (2) strikes appellants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement and confirm an arbitration award, and (3) denies respondents' motion to place the matter on the trial calendar. Because the district court inappropriately asserted inherent judicial power to construe a term of the parties' settlement agreement based on its recollection of the settlement negotiations, rather than on evidence submitted by the parties, we reverse and remand = = = = A06-793 Judith A. Hendren, Relator, vs. Allina Medical Group (Corp), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's determination that her employer discharged her for misconduct when she changed information in her own medical record. Because relator's conduct was a single incident that did not have a significant adverse impact on her employer within the meaning of Minn. Stat. ? 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2004), we reverse. = = = = A06-496 Dennis L. Goodburn, Relator, vs. Spee Dee Delivery Service, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's decision disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings that he engaged in employment misconduct and that the judge made evidentiary and procedural errors during the hearing. Because the evidence supports the findings of misconduct, and because the judge did not err during the hearing, we affirm. = = = = A06-949 Charles H. Reinhardt, et al., Appellants, Cecil H. Bell, Appellant, vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., Respondents. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's decision to grant respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the district court erred (1) because issues of fact exist with regard to whether appellants were provided with "professional services" by Family Financial Strategies, Inc. (FFS), and (2) by granting respondents' motion without oral argument on the motion. Because we conclude that the district court did not err, we affirm. = = = = A06-788 Stephanie T. Eaton, Relator, vs. Park and Recreation Board of Minneapolis, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent WORKE, Judge On certiorari appeal from the unemployment-law judge's decision that relator was discharged for misconduct and, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, relator argues that the employer's witnesses were not truthful and their testimony was contradictory, and that she had reasonable explanations for various incidents. 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. |
