| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1993Richard Colliers, Relator, vs. Dakota County Community Development Agency, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski. Dakota County Community Development Agency. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Richard Colliers appeals from the termination of his Section 8 housing benefits, arguing that the record does not support the termination of benefits, the hearing officer's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and he was not given a reasonable accommodation. We affirm. = = = = A07-826 C. O., petitioner, Appellant, vs. John Doe, et al., Respondents. Affirmed. Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks. Dissenting, Judge R. A. (Jim) Randall. Washington County District Court, Hon. David Doyscher. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant C.O. challenges the district court's order to vacate the contact agreement between him and the adoptive parents of his biological daughter. We affirm. = = = = A06-2222, A07-944 Friends of the Riverfront, et al., Relators, vs. DeLaSalle High School, Respondent; City of Minneapolis, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Terri J. Stoneburner. Minneapolis City Council. STONEBURNER, Judge In these consolidated appeals, relators challenge by writ of certiorari respondent city's grant of a Certificate of Appropriateness and amended Certificate of Appropriateness to respondent high school for the construction of an athletic facility adjacent to the school on Nicollet Island. Because respondent city's action was not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm. = = = = A06-2061 In re the Marriage of: Kari Donna Erickson n/k/a Kari Donna Jacobson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kraig Steven Erickson, Respondent, and Itasca County Health and Human Services, Intervenor. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judge Christopher J. Dietzen Itasca County District Court, Hon. Jon A. Maturi. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court order and resulting judgment granting respondent's motion to, among other things, reduce child support, spousal maintenance, and child-support arrearages, arguing that there was no substantial change in circumstances rendering the original award unfair and unreasonable. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-2259 Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Mark Havlik, et al., Defendants; Steven Heckmann, by his father and natural guardian, Brian Heckmann, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Renee L. Worke. Dakota County District Court, Hon. Martha M. Simonett. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent insurer, which denied coverage for damages assessed against an additional insured based on policy exclusions for intentional acts and sexual molestation, appellant argues that respondent was collaterally estopped from relitigating issues resolved in the underlying tort action and that the tortfeasor's mental deficiency rendered him incapable of forming an intent to injure. We affirm. A06-2455 Ica Cristescu, Appellant, vs. Dr. Michael McGowan, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge James C. Harten.* Hennepin County District Court, Hon. John L. Holahan. HARTEN, Judge Appellant Ica Cristescu challenges the dismissal with prejudice of her dental malpractice claim. Because we see no abuse of discretion in the dismissal, we affirm. = = = = A06-2168 Joseph McLeod, Appellant, vs. Nathan Hodgeman, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Natalie E. Hudson. Hennepin County District Court, Hon. John Q. McShane. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the district court did not consider whether respondent harbored the offending dog so as to be secondarily liable as a dog owner under Minn. Stat. ? 347.22 (2006), and because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent harbored the dog. Because (1) the district court analyzed whether respondent harbored the offending dog; and (2) there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent harbored the offending dog, who bit appellant in an area controlled by respondent's tenant, 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. |
