| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2079Brenda George, et al., Appellants, vs. Joshua Dean Marshall, et al., Defendants, Ryan Christopher Schoen, Respondent, and Safeco Insurance Co., Intervenor. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Brenda George was injured in a traffic accident when the vehicle in which she was a passenger was struck by a vehicle driven by Joshua Marshall. George brought a negligence action against Marshall and his passenger, respondent Ryan Schoen, among others. As to Schoen, George sought to recover on the legal theory that he had instructed and encouraged Marshall to engage in the unlawful driving conduct that led to the accident. The district court concluded that Schoen, as a passenger, owed George no legal duty and granted summary judgment to Schoen. Because we agree with the district court that George has not alleged facts that would establish a prima facie case of negligence as to Schoen, we affirm. = = = = A06-1874 Take 5, Delaware Business Trust, et al., Appellants, vs. Lafayette International, Inc., et al., Respondents. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Take 5, Delaware Business Trust, and Walt Foster, its principal, appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents Lafayette International, Inc., The Green Edge, Inc., and Douglas A. Kretchmer, principal of both corporations. By notice of review, respondents challenge the district court's denial of their request for rule 11 sanctions. Because the district court did not err by concluding that appellants failed to make a prima facie case of malicious prosecution against respondents, we affirm the dismissal of the action for malicious prosecution. Because respondents failed to comply with the requirements of Minn. R. Civ. P. 11, we affirm the court's denial of rule 11 sanctions. Because we conclude that the court erred when it stated that judgments may only be enforced under Minn. Stat. ?? 548.26-.33 (2006) or Minn. Stat. ?? 571.93-932 (2006), we reverse the district court's dismissal of appellants' claim for Lafayette's failure to pay an earlier judgment and remand. = = = = A06-1654 LouAnn M. Swift, Relator, vs. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge By writ of certiorari, LouAnn Swift appeals an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's determination that Swift was discharged for a series of inappropriate actions that violated the standards of behavior that a long-term care facility can reasonably expect from a registered nurse who is providing care for vulnerable adults, we affirm. = = = = A06-2081 A07-321 Christopher Rouse, Appellant (A06-2081), Respondent (A07-321), vs. Craig J. Marshall, Respondent (A06-2081), Appellant (A07-321). KALITOWSKI, Judge In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff-appellant Christopher Rouse challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial or additur, arguing that the jury's verdict denying past and future pain and suffering is not reconcilable with its award of past and future medical expenses. Defendant-appellant Craig Marshall challenges the district court's denial of his motion for costs and disbursements under Minn. R. Civ. P. 68, arguing that the district court erred by considering costs incurred by plaintiff after defendant's rule 68 offer was rejected. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-1687 Steven Donald Dorr, Relator, vs. John Deere Shared Services Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Steven Donald Dorr challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that he quit his employment without good reason caused by the employer. Relator also argues that by failing to obtain documentation that relator requested, the ULJ did not properly develop the record. We affirm. = = = = A06-1545 Dennis Hallen and Rebecca Hart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, vs. Hometown America, LLC, d/b/a Cimarron Manufactured Home Park, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellants Dennis Hallen and Rebecca Hart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, challenge the district court's judgment in favor of respondent Hometown America, LLC, arguing that the district court erred by (1) denying appellants' jury trial request; (2) misstating the appropriate standard of proof regarding retaliation under Minn. Stat. ? 327C.12 (2006); (3) making clearly erroneous findings of fact; and (4) admitting irrelevant expert testimony. We affirm. = = = = A07-594 A07-669 In re the Marriage of: Pamela J. Stevermer, petitioner, Respondent (A07-594), Appellant (A07-669), vs. Kenneth A. Stevermer, Appellant (A07-594), Respondent (A07-669). KLAPHAKE, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellant Pamela J. Stevermer challenges the district court's order denying her motion to modify child custody and parenting time without an evidentiary hearing, denying her request that the child be seen by a therapist, and "encourag[ing]" the parties to "attempt to resolve" their dispute through mediation. Respondent Kenneth A. Stevermer challenges the district court's order denying his motion to establish child support. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent's motion to establish child support based on the terms of the parties' agreement, we affirm that order. Because the district court erred by failing to require the parties to submit their custody and parenting time dispute to mediation, as required by the terms of their agreement, we reverse the order denying appellant's motions. We order the parties to submit the matter to mediation, and we make no ruling on the merits of appellant's motions. = = = = A06-1822 Mary Owens, Appellant, vs. Lisa Carter, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Mary Owens challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her claim of negligence against respondent Lisa Carter for injuries she suffered when she tripped through a front door that had missing glass. Because respondent owed no duty to appellant to warn of a known and obvious hazard, we affirm. = = = = A06-1482 Elizabeth Beaumia, Respondent, vs. Mark Eisenbraun, Defendant, Denise Eisenbraun, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order evicting her from a house owned by respondent, arguing that because respondent failed to register the house with the City of Alexandria as a rental unit, her failure to pay rent cannot be a ground for eviction. We reverse. = = = = A06-1815 City of Stillwater, Respondent, vs. Marcia Kilbourne, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment on respondent city's declaratory-judgment action, declaring that appellants are in violation of respondent's zoning code and granting injunctive relief directing appellants to return their property to the use permitted under the city's zoning code. Appellants also challenge the dismissal of their counterclaim that asserts an unlawful taking. We affirm. = = = = A07-272 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. J.-M. and H.W., Parents HUDSON, Judge In this termination-of-parental-rights appeal, appellant-father argues that (a) the district court erroneously terminated his parental rights on a basis that was not pleaded; (b) the district court erroneously considered certain evidence; (c) the record does not support the termination of his parental rights; (d) the county failed to adequately investigate transferring legal custody of his child; and (e) the record does not show that termination was in the child's best interests. We affirm. = = = = A06-1840 Tamara Haeg, et al., Appellants, vs. George Geiger, Respondent, Steve Slater, et al., Defendants. HUDSON, Judge This is an appeal from summary judgment in a negligence action, in which appellant, who was a passenger in a golf cart driven by respondent, sued respondent for negligently parking the golf cart. While appellant and respondent were seated in the parked golf cart, another golfer hit a golf ball that hit appellant in the left eye, ultimately causing her to lose the eye. The court entered summary judgment for respondent, ruling that no special relationship existed giving rise to a duty on respondent's part to protect appellant. Appellant argues that (a) her claim is one of "direct negligence" and thus no special relationship is necessary to impose a duty of reasonable care; (b) respondent owed appellant a duty of reasonable care not to injure her though his negligence; and (c) respondent owed appellant a duty of reasonable care under Restatement (Second) of Torts ? 321 (1965). Because we conclude that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of respondent, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. = = = = A06-1730 Linda Nance, et al., Appellants, vs. Daniel Evje, et al., Respondents, Mike Atkins, et al., Respondents, Nathan Richter, et al., Respondents, Mike Bell, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellants Linda and Eric Nance challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents Daniel and Valerie Evje (collectively Evjes); respondents Mike Atkins, Century 21/Dickerson Realtors, and Mark Dickerson (collectively Atkins); respondents Nathan Richter and ERA Pederson Realty, Inc. (collectively Richter); and respondent Mike Bell. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact and the district court properly applied the law, we affirm. = = = = A07-666 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: T.R., T.M., P.P. and B.H., Parents. WORKE, Judge In this termination-of-parental-rights matter, appellant-father argues that (1) the record does not support the finding that he is a palpably unfit parent; (2) the county failed to provide reasonable services to him and to reunify the family; and (3) the record does not support the determination that termination of his parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Because we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record supporting the finding that appellant is palpably unfit to properly care for his child for the reasonably foreseeable future, that appellant was provided with reasonable rehabilitative services and further reunification efforts would be futile, and that the termination of appellant's parental rights is in the child's best interests, we affirm. = = = = A07-681 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Dwane David Peterson. ROSS, Judge On appeal from an order for civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person, Dwane Peterson argues that the county failed to present evidence of an overt act of dangerousness and that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court's finding that he engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct. Because Peterson raises the overt-act argument for the first time on appeal and the evidence establishes that he engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-1673 Kennard Anderson, et al., Respondents, vs. State of Minnesota and its Department of Natural Resources, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant State of Minnesota and its Department of Natural Resources (DNR) challenge the district court's order granting a prescriptive easement in gross on state land to respondents Kennard Anderson, Evans Anderson, James Anderson, Wayne Anderson, Douglas Anderson, David Anderson, Richard Anderson, and Michael Anderson. 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 Law Firm 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. |
