| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2280Mary Jo K. Gerring, Appellant, vs. Virginia Gerring, et al., Respondents, Gerring Properties, Inc., et al., Respondents, Steven M. Gerring, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Mary Jo K. Gerring challenges the judgment dismissing her claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and replevin against respondents Gerring Properties, Inc., Martin T. Gerring, Virginia Gerring, Steven M. Gerring, Mathew S. Gerring, and Steven R. Gerring. Appellant also challenges the district court's conclusion that respondents acted properly in turning over appellant's shares of stock in response to a third-party levy. Because the district court did not err in dismissing this action on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel or in concluding that the third-party levy was valid, we affirm. = = = = A06-2227 Valspar Refinish, Inc., Respondent, vs. Gaylord's, Inc., a California corporation, Appellant KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Gaylord's, Inc. challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment for respondent Valspar Refinish, Inc. on its breach-of-contract claim and against appellant on all of its counterclaims. Appellant also contends that the district court erred by failing to rule on or sustain its evidentiary objections to affidavits submitted by respondent in support of its claim. We affirm. = = = = A06-2064 In re the Marriage of: Qingyan Chen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Zihong Zhao, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge In this dissolution appeal, appellant-husband challenges the district court's rulings (1) failing to set off wife's award against husband's award; (2) denying husband's motion for a new trial; (3) declining to amend its original findings of facts as to specific assets and debts; (3) awarding wife need-based attorney fees; and (5) making findings about husband's bad faith and misconduct. We affirm as modified. = = = = A06-2036 A06-2327 Howard Homes, Inc., Respondent, vs. Keeler Stucco, Inc., et al., Defendants (A06-2036), Keeler Stucco, Inc., Appellant (A06-2327), Aaron Novak d/b/a Hi-Tech Custom Builders, Appellant (A06-2036), Aaron Novak d/b/a Hi-Tech Custom Builders, et al., Defendants (A06-2327). STONEBURNER, Judge In this consolidated appeal, appellant subcontractors challenge the district court's declaratory judgment that indemnity agreements contained in appellants' contracts with respondent general contractor are valid and binding, obligating appellants to defend, indemnify, and hold respondent harmless from all claims arising out of or in any way relating to appellants' work. We affirm. = = = = A07-1106 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: N.H. and R.G., Parents. ROSS, Judge Appellant father R.G. challenges the district court's order terminating his parental rights to his daughter. This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court abused its discretion when it granted Blue Earth County's trial-day motion to amend its petition to add to the previously stated bases to terminate parental rights. We must also decide whether the record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the order to terminate R.G.'s parental rights. Because R.G. was given virtually no notice of the county's amendment and had no time to modify his defense, the county's amendment to the petition should not have been allowed. Because the county made no effort to reunify father and daughter, the record lacks clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of R.G.'s parental rights. We therefore reverse. = = = = A06-2215 Hypoguard USA, Inc., et al., Respondents, vs. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant. HUSPENI, Judge Appellant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (St. Paul) and its insureds, respondents Hypoguard USA, Inc., and Medisys USA, Inc. (collectively Hypoguard), brought cross-motions for summary judgment to resolve whether St. Paul had a duty to defend Hypoguard in a class action brought against it. The district court determined that St. Paul was obligated to defend Hypoguard, granted Hypoguard's motion, and denied St. Paul's motion. Because we conclude that St. Paul has no duty to defend Hypoguard in that action, we reverse the summary judgment granted to Hypoguard and remand for entry of summary judgment for St. Paul. = = = = A06-2374 Greg Toon, et al., Appellants, vs. Duluth Economic Development Authority, et al., Defendants, Hansen's Auto Service, Respondent. PEN, Judge Appellants Greg and Jane Toon dispute the district court's summary judgment dismissing their adverse possession claim directed at a strip of land adjoining their St. Louis County lot. Because the record creates fact disputes that cannot be resolved by summary judgment, we reverse 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. |
