| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1092Dale Nathan, Appellant, vs. Mark Ritchie, as Minnesota Secretary of State, et al., Respondents. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Dale Nathan challenges the district court's judgment dismissing his taxpayer's lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that respondents Mark Ritchie, as Minnesota Secretary of State, Alberto Quintela, Jr. as Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Kathy Hjelm, as Fiscal & Administrative Services Manager, Minnesota Office of Secretary of State, and the State of Minnesota, acted unlawfully in cancelling a service contract for the state's voter registration system. Because appellant does not have standing to bring this lawsuit, we affirm. = = = = A07-80 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Dale Allen Lindsey. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from an order for civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person, Dale Lindsey challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his commitment and his placement at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Lindsey argues that the state failed to show that he was a sexually dangerous person because his last sexual offense occurred in 1990, he has not committed any further sexual offenses since completing sex offender treatment, and he has lived in the community for about five years without engaging in harmful sexual conduct. For similar reasons, Lindsey argues that he demonstrated the availability of a suitable, less-restrictive treatment program. Because the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and those findings satisfy the statutory requirements, we affirm. = = = = A06-2142 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Patrick James Blue, Sr. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality and a sexually dangerous person, appellant argues that (1) the commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality is not supported by the evidence, (2) the admission of actuarial-risk-assessment-testing evidence denied him the right to substantive due process, and (3) the record does not support a finding that he is currently suffering from a mental disorder justifying commitment. We affirm. = = = = A06-2096 James H. Paden, Appellant, vs. Sandra Wald, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from an order denying appellant father's motion to modify child custody, father argues that, based upon the moving papers and supporting documents, the district court should have found that a prima facie case of endangerment of the children was shown, and the district court abused its discretion by not appointing a guardian ad litem or ordering an updated custody evaluation.[1] Because father's motion and supporting affidavit did not set forth facts that establish that a significant change in circumstances has occurred since the prior order, we affirm. = = = = A06-939 Clare A. Welter, Relator, vs. University of Minnesota Physicians Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct. Relator argues that (1) she was terminated because her approach to patient care differed from that of her coworkers, which does not constitute misconduct; and (2) the ULJ erred in failing to explain why he credited the employer's witnesses over relator's witnesses. We affirm. = = = = A06-533 Willmar Unclaimed Freight, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, AND Dawn Holmes, Appellant, vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred in allowing respondent to present evidence and argument at trial about issues that were decided in appellant's favor on summary judgment. We affirm. = = = = A06-672 Hadeel Taxi, Inc., Appellant, vs. Donald Kirchoffner, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge In this suit for property damage arising out of a motor-vehicle accident, appellant argues that the district court erred by declining to vacate its judgment for respondent under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(c) because respondent had perpetrated a fraud during the proceedings. We affirm. = = = = A06-1096 Sean Bowman, Relator, vs. ConAgra Foods, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator Sean Bowman challenges the decision that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct for committing theft of three drills. Relator challenges the credibility determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) and argues, as he did at the hearing, that he had signed them out but had forgotten to put his name on the sign-out sheet, and that out of jealousy his ex-girlfriend reported to the company that he stole the equipment. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's decision, and the ULJ did not err in determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-987 Holyfield I. James, Relator, vs. Sears Roebuck and Co., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator Holyfield James challenges the decision that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. He argues that (a) the testimony and the record do not support the decision and (b) even if he engaged in some misconduct, it did not rise to the level to disqualify him from receiving unemployment benefits. Because his allegations hinge on credibility issues, and because we must give deference to the ULJ's credibility determinations, we affirm. = = = = A06-661 Metropolitan Airports Commission, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Brandon Square III, Appellant, 2405 East Old Shakopee Road, et al., Defendants. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from the district court's condemnation order, appellant property owner argues that respondent's taking of a fee-simple interest in appellant's land is not "necessary" under Minn. Stat. ? 117.075 (2006) because respondent's long-term use for the fee simple interest is speculative, and the taking, therefore, is excessive. We affirm. = = = = A06-2015 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of R. E. R., Parent MINGE, Judge Appellant Clay County challenges the district court's dismissal of the county's petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights to two of her children arguing that the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. Because the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A06-1099 In the Matter of the Rate Appeal of Foundation for Rural Health Care, d/b/a McIntosh Manor, Crestview Care Center and Pelican Lake Care Center. HUDSON, Judge Relator Foundation for Rural Health Care, Inc. challenges the final decision of the commissioner of the Department of Human Services (commissioner) affirming the department's denial of relator's request for a property-rate increase. Because we conclude that relator purchased its nursing homes from a related organization, we affirm. = = = = A06-983 Ken R. Worden, Relator, vs. Calcutta Partners, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the ULJ's determination regarding the date of his last day of work. Because credibility determinations are within the purview of the ULJ, we affirm. = = = = A06-688 S.A.S., by and through his Parents, W.S. and S.S., and on their own behalf, and A.B.S., Appellants, vs. Hibbing Public Schools, Independent School District No. 701, et al., Respondents. HUDSON, Judge Appellants S.A.S., by and through his parents, W.S. and S.S.; W.S. and S.S. on their own behalf; and A.B.S. challenge the district court's judgment of February 7, 2006, granting summary judgment in favor of respondents. Appellants argue that the district court erred by granting summary judgment because collateral estoppel does not preclude appellants' pendent state claims. We affirm. = = = = A06-1406 Larry Schultz, Appellant, Rodger D. Robb, II, Appellant, vs. Cal Ludeman, et al., Respondents. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellants Larry Schultz and Rodger Robb dispute the adequacy of district court findings on factors permitting the court to deny a temporary injunction against the state. Because the record is adequate to support the district court'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. |
