| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1076In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Shannon Patrick Donald English. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Shannon Patrick Donald English challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Because clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment, we affirm. = = = = A07-998 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joseph Jose Thompson TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Joseph Jose Thompson challenges his commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) on the ground that it is not the least restrictive alternative. Because the district court's determination that the MSOP is the least restrictive alternative is not clearly erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A07-89 The Estate of: Theodore B. Nistler, Decedent. LANSING, Judge On appeal following remand, the heirs of Theodore Nistler challenge the district court's order granting a decree of descent that assigns each of them a one-fifth interest in the redemption rights to Nistler's former homestead. The heirs' principal argument is that the district court failed to comply with the remand instructions. The district court's determination of descent necessarily took into account an intervening sheriff's execution sale of the estate's sole asset, and the descent decree is not inconsistent with the remand instructions. Because the remaining challenges provide no basis for reversal, we affirm. = = = = A06-1784 In re the Marriage of: Nancy Marie Wickhem, f/k/a Nancy Marie Jernberg, petitioner, Appellant, vs. David Damon Wickhem, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Nancy Marie Wickhem challenges the district court's amended dissolution judgment and decree of July 28, 2006, arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion in its valuation of personal property; (2) the district court abused its discretion in awarding spousal maintenance because it (a) failed to account for respondent's annual bonuses; (b) improperly imputed income to appellant; (c) erred in determining appellant's ability to support herself; and (d) erred by divesting itself of jurisdiction to hear future motions to modify spousal maintenance; (3) the district court abused its discretion by not requiring respondent to secure his spousal-maintenance obligation with life insurance; (4) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award need-based attorney fees; and (5) the district court erred by failing to apply the new statutory cap for child support. We affirm the distribution of personal property and the refusal to require life insurance, and we reverse and remand the spousal-maintenance and child-support awards and the refusal to award need-based attorney fees. = = = = A06-1994 Christine L. Rannow, Relator, vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment law judge that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was not available for suitable employment due to medical and transportation problems and because she was not actively seeking suitable employment. We affirm. = = = = A06-2200 In re the Support of: Cherrin B. Burgland n/k/a Cherrin B. Godak, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Duane A. Erwin, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge In this child-support dispute, pro-se appellant-father argues that (1) the foreign decree setting his support obligation was improperly registered in Minnesota and the registration deprived him of due process of law; (2) he had a valid defense to the registration of the foreign decree in Minnesota; (3) the Minnesota district court should have allowed him to challenge the jurisdiction of the foreign court to issue the decree in question; (4) the district court misapplied the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and (5) the district court should have granted him a "new trial." Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-2090 Elinor L. Jackson, Relator, vs. Global Marketing Opportunities Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator, the owner and employee of a consulting business, challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ's) decision that she was not eligible for benefits because she did not submit the proper form in 2004 that would have made her eligible to receive unemployment benefits. She argues that this was a good-faith mistake that she and her accountant made because they were confused about whether the form was required. Because the record shows that relator did not, after being notified, file the election form required by statute in order to remain in the unemployment-compensation system, we affirm. = = = = A06-1771 Todd Unger, Appellant, vs. County of Dodge, et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in a mandamus action challenging the denial of a conditional use permit (CUP), appellant-applicant argues that the district court erred in determining that (1) respondent-county complied with Minn. Stat. ? 15.99 (2006), (2) the board of adjustment's action was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, (3) appellant failed to raise a valid promissory- or equitable-estoppel claim, (4) respondent's ordinance is not void for vagueness, and (5) appellant failed to raise a valid takings claim. We affirm. = = = = A06-2023 Nancy Heinonen, Relator, vs. Student Experience LLC Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Nancy Heinonen challenges an unemployment law judge's determination that she quit her employment with Student Experience LLC and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We must decide whether the employment ended on a quit or a discharge. Because Student Experience's statements to Heinonen would lead a reasonable employee to believe that she was no longer qualified to continue as an employee of Student Experience, the termination was a discharge, and we reverse. = = = = A06-1769 HARTEN, Judge Appellants, real estate brokers, challenge the district court's dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) of their action for a commission. Because Minn. Stat. ? 82.18 (2004) applies to this action and provides that a broker may not bring an action for a commission without a written agreement and appellants had no written agreement, we affirm the dismissal. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
