| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1969Wayne Nicolaison, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Wayne Nicolaison challenges the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting discharge from his commitment as a psychopathic personality. Because the record demonstrates that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition, we affirm. = = = = In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. W., Parent TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant R.W. challenges the district court's termination of her parental rights. Because the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A06-838 John F. Fiedler, by Faith Sohns, his daughter and attorney-in-fact, Appellant, vs. City of Osakis, et al., Respondents. In this appeal from a summary judgment dismissing appellant's personal-injury action against respondent city and its employee, appellant argues that the exception from the liability limitation in the Municipal Tort Liability Act, Minn. Stat. ? 466.04, subd. 1a (2006), violates (1) the equal-protection clauses of the United States and the Minnesota Constitutions, and (2) the due-process and remedies clauses of the Minnesota Constitution. Because appellant has not shown direct, personal harm from the alleged constitutional violation, he does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory exception, and we affirm. = = = = A06-734 Extendicare Health Services, Inc., Appellant, vs. Craig T. Henderson, Respondent, Brett F. Henderson, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant nursing home challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents, arguing that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether one or both respondents is personally liable under Minn. Stat. ? 144.6501 (2004) for the unpaid costs of respondents' mother's nursing-home care. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment, we affirm. = = = = A06-546 Darryl Burton, Appellant, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant seeks the return of cash that was seized by the police when they arrested him for a controlled-substance offense. He challenges the district court's determination on summary judgment that the statute of limitations bars his negligence, conversion, and unjust-enrichment claims. We affirm. = = = = A06-2213 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Raymond Leon Semler MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that there was not clear and convincing evidence that he engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct or that he is likely to engage in future acts of harmful sexual conduct. Appellant also argues that his indefinite commitment constitutes incarceration in violation of his double jeopardy and due process rights. Because clear and convincing evidence in the record supports appellant's commitment as a sexually dangerous person and because his constitutional claim is premature and not developed, we affirm. = = = = A06-80 A06-299 Theodore Mellby, et al., Relators, vs. Cass County, Respondent, Bryan Walker, Respondent. WORKE, Judge In these consolidated land-use appeals, relators argue that (1) the county's findings under the zoning ordinance are inadequate to allow review of the county's grant of a preliminary conditional use permit and planned unit development; (2) the planning commission misunderstood aspects of the zoning ordinance, including misunderstanding it to preclude the exercise of discretion in addressing respondents' various applications for permits and its calculation for development density; and (3) the county's grant of the conditional use permit/public unit development, preliminary plat, and final plat were arbitrary and capricious and based on a misapplication of the relevant law. We affirm. = = = = A06-1835 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: T.L.S. and T.J.W., Parents ROSS, Judge Appellant T.L.S. challenges the district court's order terminating her parental rights to her children. She argues that the district court erred by concluding that the county made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children, that reasonable efforts failed to correct the conditions that led the county to remove the children from her home, and that termination was in the children's best interests. We affirm = = = = A06-801 In the Matter of the Custody of T.L.L. ROSS, Judge On appeal from an order denying his motion for parenting time without an evidentiary hearing, Jela Jones argues that he was denied due process and equal protection. Because Jones did not present any changed circumstances to the district court to support the modification or suggest that the modification would be in his child's best interests, we affirm. = = = = A06-395 Roger C. Alderson, Respondent, vs. Daniel M. Homolka, et al., Appellants. ROSS, Judge This case concerns a contest between attorneys over fees in a personal-injury action that settled for over .4 million. On appeal from a judgment finding attorney Daniel Homolka and his law firm liable to attorney Roger Alderson on a quantum-meruit basis for failing to pay Alderson for services he performed for Homolka, Homolka argues that rule 1.5(e) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct bars the recovery and that the district court erred by overvaluing Alderson's services, by denying his motion to dismiss him as an improper party, and by finding his law firm liable. By notice of review, Alderson challenges the district court's entry of summary judgment on his breach-of-contract claim, limitation of prejudgment interest, and denial of his motion to amend his complaint. Because we find that the record and law support the district court's findings and conclusions, 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. |
