| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2031In re the Estate of: Gerald Lee Larson, a/k/a Jerry Lee Larson, Deceased. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Jennifer Anderson challenges the district court order granting summary judgment to respondent Earl Larson, personal representative of decedent Gerald Lee Larson's estate. Appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing her action based on Minnesota's anti-palimony statutes. We reverse and remand. = = = = A06-2349 Carrie Koivisto, Respondent, vs. Duane L. Dale, et al., Defendants, Richard A. Poupard, et al., Appellants. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellants, a snowplow operator and his state employer, challenge the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment in which they asserted official immunity, vicarious official immunity, and snow and ice immunity in this action for damages arising out of a collision with a state snowplow. Because the snowplow operator was engaged in discretionary conduct at the time of the collision, he is entitled to the absolute defense of official immunity, and his state employer is entitled to the absolute defense of vicarious official immunity. Therefore, the district court erred as a matter of law, and we reverse. = = = = A06-2236 In re the Marriage of: Matthew Jon Lewis, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jacqueline Lee Lewis, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's amended dissolution judgment and decree, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not awarding her permanent spousal maintenance and by ordering an automatic step reduction in the amount of her temporary maintenance. On notice of review, respondent challenges the district court's findings regarding his income, appellant's reasonable monthly expenses, and his spousal-maintenance arrearages. Respondent also argues that the district court abused its discretion by apportioning certain debts to him and by making him entirely responsible for the minor children's uninsured medical expenses. Because the district court abused its discretion by ordering an automatic step reduction in appellant's spousal maintenance, by finding that respondent's pension is entirely employer-funded, and by ordering respondent to pay ,915.21 in maintenance arrearages, but did not abuse its discretion in any other regard, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-1825 Michelle M. Dockter, Relator, vs. Warroad Care Center, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) decision disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by finding that she quit without good reason caused by the employer. Because the ULJ did not err by finding that relator quit her job without good reason caused by the employer, we affirm. = = = = A06-1812 In re the Marriage of: Michael J. Schwagel, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kelly Rylynn Ward, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant-father challenges the district court's orders establishing child support and denying his motion to amend his child-support obligation, arguing that the district court overstated his income, improperly included his veterans' disability compensation in his income for child-support purposes, failed to consider respondent's income, and that the child-support award is unfair. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by establishing child support and did not err by including appellant's veterans' disability payments in his income, and because the award is not unfair, we affirm. = = = = A06-2123 Cindy J. Woods, Relator, vs. Federated Retail Holdings, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Relator Cindy J. Woods challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A06-1859 Lisa T. Truong, Relator, vs. G M L Incorporated, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator challenges an unemployment law judge's determination that she quit her employment and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. = = = = A06-1586 Masterson Personnel Inc., Relator, vs. Julie A. Beck, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator-employer challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision approving unemployment benefits for respondent-employee. Relator argues that the ULJ erred in concluding that respondent was not discharged for employment misconduct. Based on the stage of the benefit-payment process, respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development moved to dismiss the appeal. We reverse and deny the Department's motion. = = = = A07-0616 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ozhaawaskoo Giishig a/k/a Guy Israel Green HUDSON, Judge On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person, appellant argues that (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his commitment; (2) his commitment is barred by collateral estoppel because the issues raised by the state's petition are the same as the issues the state raised in an unsuccessful 1993 petition for indeterminate commitment; (3) because he is a Native American, the court lacks jurisdiction to commit him under Public Law 83-280; and (4) his commitment is punitive and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. We affirm. = = == A07-635 Paradigm Enterprises, Inc., Respondent, vs. Westfield National Insurance Co., Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant-insurer challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent-employer for claimed overpayment of respondent's workers' compensation insurance premium. Because the district court did not err in interpreting Minn. Stat. ? 176.041, subd. 1(g) (2006), or in construing the parties' insurance contract, we conclude that overpayment occurred, and we affirm. = = = = A06-2009 Mary C. Osland, Relator, vs. Teens Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct, contending that (a) she did not receive a fair hearing, and (b) the ULJ should have credited her testimony that she was discharged due to a personality conflict with the owner and should not have credited the employer's evidence that customers had complained about her, that she had been warned that this could lead to her termination, and that she had been fired based on the complaints. Because the ULJ conducted the hearing fairly, the ULJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and we defer to the ULJ's credibility determinations, we affirm. = = = = A06-1319 In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Ann Puetz, petitioner, Respondent, vs. John Thomas Puetz, Appellant. WORKE, Judge In this dissolution appeal, appellant-husband argues that (1) he was denied due process and a fair trial because he was not provided with court-appointed counsel when he was incompetent and confused over the role of the guardian ad litem, and (2) the property division was inequitable. We affirm. = = = = A07-807 In re the Marriage of: Michelle E. Li-Kuehne, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Stephen E. Kuehne, Appellant. MUEHLBERG, Judge Appellant-husband argues that the district court abused its discretion in including a cost-of-living adjustment to a step reduction in his maintenance obligation and in requiring him to pay private school tuition for the parties' child. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in including a cost-of-living adjustment to the maintenance obligation and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay for the child's private school tuition, we affirm. = = = = A06-1872 Glen R. Hinz, et al., Respondents, vs. City of Lakeland, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant city challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent landowners, arguing that (1) a writ of mandamus is an improper remedy to grant to landowners challenging the denial of a zoning variance; (2) the city's denial of respondents' variance application was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious; (3) respondents' equal-protection claim fails as a matter of law because they are not similarly situated to other landowners who were granted variances; (4) no regulatory taking of respondents' lot occurred; and (5) the district court erred by not requiring respondents to join their neighbors as indispensable parties. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
