| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1659Henry L. Woodruff, Appellant, vs. Cal Ludeman, et al., Respondents. KALITOWSKI, Judge Pro se appellant Henry Woodruff, a residential patient of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, challenges the district court's dismissal of his complaint against respondents for failure to state a claim. We affirm. = = = = A06-2287 Lori L. Schuna, Relator, vs. Reynolds and Reynolds Partnership, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MAKER, Judge Relator argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) improperly denied her request for reconsideration, which was postmarked 31 days after the ULJ mailed to relator the decision concluding that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because of employment misconduct. Because the relator failed to meet the statutory deadline for her request, the ULJ had no jurisdiction to consider it. We affirm. = = = = A07-0164 Pofabe Development Corporation, Appellant, vs. Ra SM, Inc. d/b/a Once Upon a Child, et al., Respondents. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant, a commercial landlord, challenges summary judgment dismissing its claim against respondent tenant for anticipatory repudiation of a commercial lease. The district court held that the tenant's notice of intent to continue the lease did not constitute a binding agreement because the lease contained a renewal option that could only be effected by the parties executing a new lease. Because the district court determined that there was no renewal, it did not reach appellant's argument that the guarantor of the original lease was liable for damages caused by breach of the renewed lease. We affirm. = = = = A07-1387 In the Matter of the Welfare of Children of: G.A.H. and M.A.K., Parents MINGE, Judge Appellant G.A.H. challenges the termination of her parental rights, claiming that the county failed to provide her with services and sufficient time for reunification with her children. Because termination was based on egregious harm and the county made a prima facie showing of egregious harm at the outset of the proceeding, the district court did not err in suspending reunification efforts. We affirm. = = = = A07-1328 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: T.J.M. and P.M.M., Parents MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6) (2006), regarding egregious harm to a child occurring while in the parent's care. He argues that the evidence that he caused egregious harm to his child was insufficient to meet the requirements of the statutes, that his admissions were both inadequate to support termination and coerced, that the district court's findings regarding the best interests of his children were based on insufficient evidence, and that his substantive due process rights were violated. We affirm. = = = = A07-993 In re the Matter of: Joseph Michael Krznarich, Respondent, vs. Kathleen Ann Freeman, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant mother challenges the denial of her motions for a new trial and for amended findings in a case awarding sole legal and physical custody of their child to respondent father. Appellant claims that the district court improperly failed to consider additional evidence, abused its discretion in determining custody, conducted the custody proceedings improperly, and erred by requiring her to pay child support. We affirm. = = = = A06-1847 Frank Howard, et al., Respondents, vs. John Webb, et al., Appellants, BDP Architects, et al., Defendants. MINGE, Judge Appellant developer challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. That denial upheld a jury verdict and resulting judgment that awarded respondent investors damages for fraud and found that appellant was not entitled to damages on his counterclaim for slander of title. Appellant claims that the opening argument by counsel for respondent investors, along with the district court's rulings excluding evidence of settlement offers and permitting certain questioning, constituted prejudicial and reversible errors. Respondents appeal the jury-verdict determinations and the resulting judgment based on those determinations as irreconcilable. Because we conclude that the district court's evidentiary rulings were neither erroneous nor an abuse of discretion and that the jury's determinations are reconcilable, we affirm. = = = = A06-1979 In re: Guardianship of Herbert D. Emswiler, Ward WRIGHT, Judge Appellant-ward challenges (1) the district court's conclusion that he requires a guardian, (2) the comprehensive grant of the statutory powers to his guardian, and (3) the appointment of his daughter to serve as his guardian. We affirm. = = = = A06-1690 David Ness, et al., Appellants, vs. County of Crow Wing, et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant property owners challenge respondent county's denial of their application for a construction permit. Appellants argue that (1) respondent's decision was arbitrary and capricious and violated its own zoning ordinance; (2) the district court erroneously failed to consider trial testimony relevant to the arbitrary and capricious nature of respondent's decision; (3) denying their application for a construction permit and granting their neighbor's application violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection; and (4) the zoning ordinance on which respondent based its decision operated as an unconstitutional taking of their property. We affirm. = = = = A07-116 In re the Marriage of: Michelle L. Hall, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Steven M. Hall, Appellant. DIETZEN, Judge In this marital-dissolution proceeding, appellant husband challenges the district court order awarding the federal income tax exemptions for the parties' three minor children to respondent wife, arguing that the district court erred on the grounds that appellant has the greater income and contributes a greater amount of money to the children's support. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-2292 Emily Marie Beyersdorf Johnson, Respondent, vs. Farm Bureau Insurance Company, Respondent, Clarendon National Insurance Company, Appellant. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant Clarendon National Insurance Company (Clarendon) challenges the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent Farm Bureau Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), arguing that the district court erred in concluding that Clarendon's liability policy provided the second layer of coverage and that Farm Bureau's umbrella policy provided excess coverage. We affirm. = = = = A06-2221 Paul T. Czerniak, Relator, vs. ATK Ordnance & Ground Systems, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. DIETZEN, Judge In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was discharged for employment misconduct and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving benefits, arguing that his tardiness did not constitute misconduct. Because the ULJ properly applied the law and did not abuse his discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-1882 A07-652 In Re Application of Locust Hills Development, LLC DIETZEN, Judge In this consolidated certiorari proceeding, relators challenge the decisions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (the LMCD) Board of Directors granting a multiple dock license to respondent Locust Hills Development, LLC in 2006 and 2007, arguing that the decisions of the board were based on errors of law and were otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. = = = = A06-2077 In the Matter of the Request to Change Non-duty Disability Benefits to Duty Related Disability Benefits of Edward Kunze, Relator, vs. Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota, Board of Trustees, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Edward Kunze brings this certiorari appeal from the Public Employees Retirement Association's decision that his coronary-related disability did not directly result from his employment as a [police officer] for the City of White Bear Lake. Because the association did not determine whether Kunze's disability was duty-related or non-duty-related when he applied for disability benefits in 1995 and the association's 2006 decision based on its review of his file did not consider all relevant evidence, we reverse and remand for further consideration. = = = = A06-2058 Larry Rasmusson, Appellant, vs. STEN Corporation and Aspen Surgical Products, Inc., Respondents. ROSS, Judge Larry Rasmusson, former chief executive officer of STEN, Inc., appeals from summary judgment on his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims brought against STEN and Aspen Surgical Products, Inc. Rasmusson alleged that STEN and Aspen violated the license agreement between Rasmusson and STEN that entitled Rasmusson to royalties for STEN's sales of certain disposable medical products designed by Rasmusson and listed in the agreement. STEN sold all product inventory to Aspen, paid Rasmusson royalties for those sales, and left the medical-products business altogether. Aspen did not pay Rasmusson any royalties on its resale of those products or for its sale of identical products that Aspen later manufactured. Because Rasmusson cannot establish on the undisputed evidence that STEN breached the license agreement or that Aspen assumed any royalty obligations, we affirm summary judgment = = = = A07-0804 Noel J. Smith, Appellant, vs. PACCAR Financial Corp., Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge Appellant Noel Smith filed this lawsuit to clear title to a truck he purchased from Ronald Francis, who is not a party to this action. The district court entered summary judgment against Smith, ruling that, because the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act prohibited the court's recognition of Smith's title to the truck, respondent PACCAR Financial Corp. has the right to possess and sell the truck. The district court also denied Smith's motion to dismiss for failure to join Francis, who Smith claims is a necessary party. We conclude that the district court correctly determined that PACCAR is entitled to possess and sell the truck and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith's motion to dismiss. Although the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act does not prohibit recognition of Smith's title to the truck,[1] we conclude that summary judgment was warranted because Smith did not raise a genuine issue as to Francis's default or the validity of PACCAR's security interest. We therefore 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. |
