| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-755In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Willie Arthur Mosby, Jr TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality, Willie Arthur Mosby, Jr., argues that the evidence does not establish the standards for commitment and that the commitment statutes are unconstitutional as applied to him. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's order for indeterminate commitment and the statutes were constitutionally applied to appellant, we affirm. = = = = A07-460 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Adam Leroy Meyer TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Adam Leroy Meyer challenges the order for his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Because the evidence supports his commitment, because we see no error in the finding that there is no less-restrictive alternative or in the adoption of the state's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and because we see no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant's motion to sequester witnesses or in reopening the trial to take additional evidence, we affirm. = = = = A06-1978 In re the Marriage of: Denise Joan Conlin, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Peter Joseph Conlin, Appellant. RANDALL, Judge On appeal in this child-support-modification proceeding, appellant-father argues that (a) this court's prior rulings stating that district courts review a child support magistrate's (CSM's) determinations de novo are incorrect; and (b) even if the district court reviews a CSM's ruling de novo, reversal is required here because the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to modify his child-support obligation. Because the district court abused its discretion in failing to conclude that the substantial change in circumstances rendered the previous child-support obligation unreasonable and unfair, we reverse and remand. = = = = A06-1883 Jose F. Ponce d/b/a Mi Pueblito, Relator, vs. City of St. Paul, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On appeal from a revocation of his mobile food vehicle license, relator Jose Ponce argues: (1) the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously by basing its decision to revoke his license on an erroneous interpretation of city and state law; and (2) the city violated relator's due-process rights by revoking his license without providing sufficient notice of the grounds for revocation. We reverse. = = = = A07-670 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Scott Wilton Lentz. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the commitment; that the district court erred when, after a review hearing, it continued appellant's commitment as a sexually dangerous person; and that his commitment violates his right against double jeopardy. We affirm. = = = = A07-805 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Isaiah Charles Swedeen. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), arguing that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the commitment and (2) the district court erred by applying an incorrect standard for the SDP commitment. We affirm. = = = = A06-1617 Independent School District No. 281, Robbinsdale, Minnesota, Relator, vs. Minnesota Department of Education, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator Independent School District No. 281 (the district) appeals from an order issued by respondent Minnesota Department of Education (the department), concluding that the district violated Minnesota law by (1) failing to provide written notice to parents before cancelling the provision of developmental-adapted-physical-education (DAPE) swimming and before revising the individualized education programs (IEP) of certain students; (2) unilaterally cancelling DAPE swimming without considering the unique special needs of each student, thereby failing to ensure the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE); (3) requiring student number 15 to pay for his DAPE swimming during the 2005-06 school year; and (4) failing to make a good-faith effort to assist 31 (of 37) students to achieve the goals and objectives listed in their IEPs related to DAPE swimming. The department's decision required the district to take the following corrective action: (1) provide compensatory swimming instruction to all 31 students for instruction missed during the 2005-06 school year; (2) provide swimming instruction during the 2006-07 school year; and (3) notify parents of the change in their children's IEPs. The district argues that the department acted arbitrarily and capriciously and erred by (1) concluding that a single complaining parent had authority to seek individual educational relief on behalf of non-complaining parents and their children; (2) failing to accord any weight to the fact that parents met with school officials and consented to the removal of DAPE swimming from their children's IEPs; (3) concluding that the district could not discontinue DAPE swimming without considering individual student needs. The district also argues that the department violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because it did not review all relevant information during its investigation and did not complete its investigation and issue a decision in a timely manner. We affirm. = = = = A06-1230, A06-1231, A07-478 The Crest Group Incorporated, Appellant (A06-1230, A07-478), Plaintiff (A06-1231), vs. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, defendant and third-party plaintiff, Respondent (A06-1230, A07-478), Appellant (A06-1231), vs. Forward Technology Industries, Inc., Third-Party Defendant (A06-1230), Respondent (A06-1231), Appellant (A07-478). 'HUDSON, Judge This court consolidated three appeals involving the same parties and arising out of the same transactions. A06-1230 (Crest v. Deloitte: Negligent Misrepresentation) The Crest Group, Inc. (Crest), acquired Forward Technologies, Inc. (FTI), in 2000 for million, calculated after Crest reviewed an audit of FTI's financial statements prepared by Deloitte & Touche, LLP (Deloitte). According to Crest, based on FTI's actual financial data, Crest overpaid by million when it acquired FTI. Crest brought an action against Deloitte for negligent misrepresentation. Deloitte moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had no duty to Crest; that motion was denied. After a jury found no overstatement of FTI's operating profits, the district court concluded there had been no negligent misrepresentation. Crest moved for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law (JAML).[1] That motion was denied, and Crest appealed (A06-1230). Because evidence supports the jury's verdict, because we see no abuse of discretion in the jury instructions or the special-verdict questions, and because the record refutes the allegation of judicial bias, we affirm.[2] A06-1231 (Deloitte v. FTI: Indemnification) Deloitte brought an action for indemnification against FTI based on a contractual agreement between them for legal fees and expenses incurred in defending the Crest negligent-misrepresentation lawsuit. The jury found that FTI had made material misrepresentations to Deloitte, and the district court entered judgment requiring FTI to indemnify Deloitte. FTI moved for JAML; the district court granted its motion, vacated the judgment, and entered judgment for FTI. Deloitte appealed (A06-1231). Because the evidence supports the jury's verdict, we reverse the JAML for FTI. A07-478 (Crest and FTI v. Deloitte: Costs) The district court entered an amended order for taxation of costs that reduced the award of costs against Deloitte in the negligent-misrepresentation case to the statutory minimum and, after Deloitte requested leave to petition for reconsideration, reversed an erroneous deduction from the costs awarded to Deloitte. Crest and FTI appeal from these determinations (A07-478). Because our reversal of the JAML granted to FTI eliminates the award of costs in favor of FTI and against Deloitte, that issue is moot. Because we see no violation of Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11 in the district court's correction of its erroneous deduction, we affirm the costs awarded to Deloitte and against Crest = = = = A06-1880 A06-1934 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Gaming Enterprise, Plaintiff (A06-1880), Appellant (A06-1934), Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gaming Commission, Appellant (A06-1880), vs. Leonard Prescott, individually, and as current and former officer and/or director of Little Six, Inc., Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the denial of a motion to quash subpoenas directed to members of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Gaming Commission following the docketing of a judgment by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Tribal Court in state district court, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Gaming Enterprise argues that (1) official immunity precludes the commissioners from testifying, (2) federal law preempts a collateral attack on the commission's decision, and (3) sovereign immunity precludes the subpoenas and there has been no waiver of that immunity. Because official immunity precludes the commissioners from testifying, we reverse. The motion to strike is granted with the exception of a letter that is part of the district-court record. = = = = A06-1715 In re the Marriage of: Marcia M. Martinez, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Michael L. Martinez, Appellant. ROSS, Judge In this appeal from an order addressing multiple motions following entry of a marital-dissolution judgment, Michael Martinez argues that the district court erred by denying, deferring, or failing to rule on his motions. He also challenges the imposition of attorney fees and a condition requiring him to pay the fees before the district court will accept future motions from him. Because the district court did not rule on Martinez's motions directed to the county and imposed too broad of a condition limiting future motions, we remand on those issues. But because Martinez failed to adequately brief his asserted errors, we deem the other matters waived and affirm the district court. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
