| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1256Amanda Steffensen, Appellant, vs. Caroline Otteson, Respondent. MINGE, Judge In this personal-injury case, appellant-plaintiff appeals from the district court’s judgment and the denial of her posttrial motions. Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit expert testimony and that this error was prejudicial. We reverse and remand. = = = = A06-1300 In re the Marriage of: Kim Teresa Pattinson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Daniel Keller Pattinson, Appellant. LANSING , Judge In this fourth appeal related to the spousal-maintenance provisions of a 1996 marital-dissolution judgment, Daniel Pattinson contends that the district court failed to comply with this court’s remand instructions, failed to provide independent review when it adopted proposed findings verbatim, and endorsed factual findings that are clearly erroneous. Because the record supports these contentions, we reverse and remand. = = = = A06-1317 Kathryn Nobbe, Appellant, vs. Wolfgram/Tritt & Associates, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial after a jury determined that respondent was not negligent in failing to provide sufficient coverage for appellant’s damaged paintings. Specifically, appellant asserts that the question on the special-verdict form about respondent’s negligence misstated the law and that the district court erred by holding, as a matter of law, that no special relationship existed between the parties. Respondent filed a notice of review challenging the district court’s denial of its summary-judgment motion based on a release that appellant gave to other tortfeasors and the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because, under the circumstances of this case, any error in the special-verdict question was harmless, we affirm, and therefore find it unnecessary to reach the issues raised in the notice of review. = = = = A07-317 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: William Richard Iverson. WILLIS , Judge Appellant challenges his commitment as mentally ill to the mental-health unit at the Oak Park Heights correctional facility and the district court’s authorization of the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication to appellant. We affirm. = = = = A07-16 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T.P. and P.P., Parents In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T.P. and D.W., Parents MINGE, Judge On appeal from the district court’s termination of her parental rights, appellant-mother argues that (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that the children suffered egregious harm while in her care; (2) termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of the children; and (3) she was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm. = = = = A06-2170 Leon S. DeCook, et al., Appellants, vs. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board, Respondent. PETERSON , Judge This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing appellant-landowner’s regulatory-taking claim. We reverse and remand. = = = = A06-1962 Bruce H. Wheece, Appellant, vs. Great River Regional Library, Respondent, Joint Powers Organization of the City of St. Cloud, et al., Defendants. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges dismissal of his whistleblower action against respondent public library, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that he failed to make a prima facie case under Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (2006). We affirm. = = = = A06-1773 In re the Marriage of: Essam El-Dean Hassan Ahmed, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Eman Bakry Haroun, Respondent. LANSING , Judge After the district court denied Essam El-Dean Hassan Ahmed’s motion for a fourth continuance, he agreed to settle his marital-dissolution proceeding through an oral stipulation. Ahmed subsequently moved to vacate the stipulation, and the district court denied the motion. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying both the motion for a continuance and the motion to vacate. Because the written order improperly added new terms to the stipulation, however, we affirm as modified. = = = = A06-1755 Jared W. Sachs, et al., Appellants, vs. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Respondent. LANSING , Judge Jared Sachs, John Bauer, Ralph Stoeffel d/b/a Spiral Fence Company, and Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company (collectively Grinnell), appeal from the district court’s denial of Grinnell’s summary-judgment motion and grant of Illinois Farmers Insurance Company’s summary-judgment motion, in this insurance-benefits-recovery action. Grinnell argues that Farmers breached its duty to defend and indemnify, thereby causing Grinnell to pay benefits that it contracted to recover through loan-receipt agreements executed by the insureds. We affirm. = = = = A06-1738 In re the Matter of the Petition for the Annexation of Land to the City of St. Paul Park Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414 (A-7212) Town of Grey Cloud Island , Appellant, vs. R. Gordon Nesvig, Respondent, D. R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota , Respondent, City of St. Paul Park , Respondent. HUDSON , Judge Appellant Town of Grey Cloud Island challenges the district court’s order of July 19, 2006, affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) order allowing respondent City of St. Paul Park to annex certain land. Appellant argues that (1) the substantial-evidence test for annexation is not satisfied when only about one-quarter of the land in question is buildable and is part of the national park system; and (2) the ALJ’s increase in the amount of land to be annexed is contrary to law. Because substantial evidence existed to support annexation, we affirm in part. But because the statutory procedures for annexing additional land were not followed, we reverse in part and remand. = = = = A06-1711 Tony Lyle Flatten, et al., Respondents, vs. Brett Mattson, et al., defendants and third party plaintiffs, Appellants, vs. Darrin K. Merrill, et al., Third Party Defendants. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in this leaky-roof case, appellants-defendants argue that (a) the district court incorrectly used the cost-of-repair measure of damages rather than the out-of-pocket measure when calculating plaintiff’s damages; (b) the record lacks the evidence required for application of the correct damage calculation; and (c) plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of the damages they claimed. Because the district court used the wrong measure of damages, we reverse. = = = = A06-1678 In re the Marriage of: Carole V. Marx, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Robert B. Marx, Appellant, and County of Anoka , intervenor, Respondent. ROSS , Judge This appeal arises from a child-support dispute in which a child-support magistrate ordered Robert Marx to pay 6,776.99 for child-support arrears. Marx argues that the district court abused its discretion by not retroactively modifying his support obligation to forgive the arrearage that accrued during his incarceration, and by not offsetting his support arrearage with amounts that his former wife, Carole Dowling, owed under a contract for deed. = = = = A06-1585 A06-2045 Village School of Northfield , Relator (A06-1585), Appellant (A06-2045), vs. Independent School District #659, Respondent, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education, Respondent. HALBROOKS , Judge In this consolidated appeal, appellant, a charter school, challenges the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education’s decision to affirm the school district’s nonrenewal of appellant’s sponsorship agreement. Appellant argues that: (1) the commissioner acted arbitrarily in affirming the school district’s nonrenewal decision because the school district failed to issue contemporaneous written findings of fact or a statement of the reasons for its nonrenewal decision; (2) the matter should be remanded to the school district for a determination of its reasons for nonrenewal with interim contract reinstatement; and (3) the district court erred in dismissing the school’s petition for mandamus. Appellant also moves this court to strike portions of respondents’ briefs on the ground that they refer to matters outside of the record. Because the commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm. Because the documents referred to in appellant’s motion to strike are part of the record, we deny the motion. = = = = A06-1578 In the Matter of the Commission Inquiry Regarding Potential Proscribed Ex Parte Contacts Regarding Commissioner Scott In the Matter of the Complaint of the Minnesota Department of Commerce Against Qwest Corporation Regarding Unfiled Agreements In the Matter of the Complaint of AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. against Qwest Corporation HALBROOKS , Judge Relator Qwest Corporation challenges the June 30, 2006, and July 24, 2006, orders issued by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, arguing that (1) the Commission’s determination that former Commissioner Greg Scott did not engage in prohibited ex parte communications with Mary Tribby, counsel for respondent AT&T Corporation, is not supported by substantial evidence and (2) the Commission’s determination that Scott’s code-of-conduct violations did not unduly and improperly influence the outcome of a claim against Qwest filed with the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. Because we conclude that the Commission’s determination that the communications between Scott and Tribby did not constitute impermissible ex parte communications is supported by substantial record evidence, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the Commission’s determination that Scott did not improperly influence the outcome of the claim filed against Qwest is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse in part and remand. = = = = A06-1557 Associated Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. Daniel J. Larscheid, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge Respondent Associated Bank sued appellant Daniel J. Larscheid to enforce the terms of two promissory notes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant argues that the district court misapplied the law and that his obligation to pay the notes was either suspended or partially discharged. Because the district court did not err in its application of the law, we affirm. = = = = A06-1461 Bradley G. Tafs, on his own behalf and on behalf of his dependents, Mary Tafs, William Tafs, and Lindsay Tafs, Appellant, vs. City of Proctor , Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellant Bradley G. Tafs brought a declaratory-judgment action to establish that he and his dependents are entitled to receive continued health-insurance benefits from respondent City of Proctor , for which appellant previously worked as a police officer. The district court denied relief to appellant who now argues that the district court erred in its application of the law. Because the district court did not err by concluding that the grant of a duty-related disability pension by the Public Employees Retirement Association under Minn. Stat. § 353.656 (2004) did not preclude respondent from challenging, in a separate proceeding to determine the right to continued health-insurance coverage under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 (2004), whether the officer’s disabling injury occurred in the course and scope of duties as a peace officer, we affirm. = = = = A06-1449 In the Matter of the License Revocation of Woodlyn Court , L.L.P. LANSING , Judge The commissioner of health revoked Woodlyn Court , L.L.P.’s license to operate a manufactured-home park and imposed a ,000 administrative penalty. Because the record establishes that Woodlyn Court violated sewage regulations and that the imposition of the ,000 penalty was not arbitrary and capricious, we affirm. = = = = A06-1359 In re the Marriage of: Gerald Ernest Jeschke, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kirsten Jean Libby, Respondent. TOUSSAINT , Chief Judge On appeal in this child-support dispute, appellant Gerald Ernest Jeschke argues that the record does not support the imputation of income to him, the allocation of private school tuition, or the attorney-fee award to respondent Kirsten Jean Libby. Respondent moves for dismissal of parts of the appeal and attorney fees. Because the district court properly exercised its broad discretion, we affirm. Because appellant waived review of the denial of his modification motion, we grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss that part of the appeal, but we deny respondent’s motion for attorney fees. = = = = A06-1887 In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Marie Gran, f/k/a Jennifer Marie-Gran Barkley, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Craig William Barkley, Appellant. TOUSSAINT , Chief Judge In this postdissolution action, appellant Craig William Barkley challenges the award of sole physical custody of the parties’ children to respondent Jennifer Marie Gran, f/k/a Jennifer Marie-Gran Barkley, the calculation of appellant’s income for child-support purposes, and the distribution of marital property. Because we see no abuse of discretion in the calculation of appellant’s income, we affirm; because the custody award lacks supporting findings, we reverse and remand; and because we see an abuse of discretion in the division of the marital property, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accord with this opinion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
