| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA05-310In re the Marriage of Thomas Carroll Rubey, Appellant vs. Valerie Ann Vannett, Respondent RANDALL, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's final judgment of June 21, 2004, awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties' daughter to respondent. Appellant also challenges the district court's order of December 9, 2004, denying appellant's motion for amended findings and/or a new trial. On appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by: (1) adopting respondent's proposed findings verbatim; (2) granting respondent sole legal and sole physical custody in violation of appellant's due process rights; (3) awarding respondent attorney fees; (4) excluding appellant's expert testimony; (5) accepting the report of the custody evaluator; and (6) allocating the dependent medical costs to appellant. Appellant also challenges the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. ? 518.17. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-562 Alma Allen Webb, Appellant, vs. Xcel Energy, Inc., Respondent. LANSING, Judge The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Alma Webb's nine claims relating to the termination of her employment at Xcel Energy. On appeal, Webb challenges the dismissal of three of her claims: reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, whistleblower retaliation under Minn. Stat. ? 181.932 (2006), and negligent supervision and retention. Because the facts, taken in the light most favorable to Webb, fail to establish elements essential to each of the three claims, we affirm the district court's summary judgment. = = = = A06-752 Gordon Manns, et al., Appellants, vs. Afton Alps, et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal from summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim, appellants argue that the district court erred by ruling that primary assumption of risk bars their claim. We affirm. = = = = A06-860 In re: Estate of Robert W. Otto, a/k/a Robert William Otto and Robert Otto, Deceased. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant James Otto challenges the district court's determination that a devise in his father's will of a certificate of deposit was specific, that the devise was adeemed by extinction, and that the bonds purchased with the proceeds of the certificate should be placed in the residue of the estate. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the devise to appellant is specific and because none of the exceptions to ademption that have been adopted by the Minnesota legislature apply here, we affirm. = = = = A06-866 David Michael Durbin, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Janeen Renee Saylor, f/k/a Janeen Renee Durbin, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge Appellant Janeen R. Durbin challenges the district court's order which (1) summarily denied her petition for parenting-time restrictions, (2) appointed a parenting-time expediter; (3) awarded compensatory parenting time; and (4) threatened the posting of a bond to secure her future compliance with the parenting-time schedule. Because we conclude that appellant made sufficiently specific allegations of child abuse warranting an evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand. = = = = A06-931 Scott Larson, d/b/a ZVDAC Enterprises, Appellant, vs. Clement Felix, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from a judgment in which the district court found that both parties had breached the contract but granted appellant ,500 in equitable damages, appellant argues that he did not breach the contract, and, therefore, should receive full compensation according to its terms. We reverse and remand. = = = = A06-970 Donald Franklin Granlund, Jr., Appellant, vs. Mark L. Lumley, Respondent, Michael Droubie, Respondent, Suzanne Droubie, Respondent, Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc., et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge In this boundary dispute, appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, arguing that the district court granted relief beyond that sought by appellants and failed to give appellant a meaningful opportunity to oppose summary judgment before resolving certain issues sua sponte. Appellant also argues that the denial of his motion to amend the complaint to add a claim of professional negligence against respondent surveyor was an abuse of discretion. By notice of review, respondent surveyor maintains that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant's claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-1004 Edward Behnke, Appellant, vs. Steven Behnke, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from summary judgment dismissing his action for damages arising out of alleged sexual abuse by respondent, appellant argues that the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. ? 541.15(a) (2004) is six years from the date the minor reaches the age of 18 years, not one year as the district court ruled. We reverse. = = = = A06-1050 Nelson W. Womack, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Respondent, Minneapolis Professional Employees Association, Respondent, John Does 1-5, Defendants. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his petition to vacate an arbitration award and his common-law fraud claim. Appellant argues that the district court erred by finding that (1) he lacked standing to vacate the arbitration award, (2) he was required and failed to file a timely motion to vacate the award, (3) his petition to vacate the award does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and (4) his common-law fraud claim against the respondent Park Board fails to state a claim because it is an improper attempt to vacate the award. Because appellant lacks standing to vacate the arbitration award and because he failed to state a claim of fraud against the Park Board, we affirm. = = = = A06-1106 Bradley P. Hagen, Relator, vs. United Air Lines, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator Bradley Hagen challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct. Because the record fails to address whether relator's conduct had a significant adverse impact on the employer, we reverse. = = = = A06-1169 Jane Doe, Appellant, vs. HealthPartners, Inc., et al., Respondents, SAM Ventures, Inc., d/b/a The Imperial Room, et al., Defendants. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Jane Doe challenges the district court's dismissal of her medical negligence and conversion claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that (1) she has a property interest in her lost urine sample sufficient to support a conversion claim; and (2) the loss of her urine sample deprived her of her right to pursue criminal justice. We affirm. = = = = A06-1209 In re the Marriage of: Barbara Jean Jucick, f/k/a Barbara Jean Jucick-Kleinman, petitioner, Respondent, vs. James Michael Kleinman, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred in its finding on his income for child-support guideline purposes, in deviating from the Hortis/Valento formula, and in finding that the parties' eldest child, who has spinal muscular atrophy, is an eligible object for a child support award. He also disputes the court's designation of marital property, its award of attorney fees to respondent, and its findings on need that underlie the court's permanent maintenance award. We affirm. = = = = A06-1276 Southside Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Respondent, vs. Chris Plourde, et al., Appellants, Western Bank, et al., Defendants. WORKE, Judge On appeal in this mechanics'-lien attorney-fee dispute, appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion by awarding respondent attorney fees significantly in excess of the lien amount. We reverse and remand. = = = = A07-58 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leslie Lavern Tallman. HARTEN, Judge Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that he is highly likely to reoffend and that Minn. Stat. ? 253B.02, subd. 18c (2004) is unconstitutional as applied to him. Because we conclude that evidence supports the finding that appellant is highly likely to reoffend and that the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to appellant, 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. |
