| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1455Michael A. O'Claire, Relator, vs. Accra Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge By writ of certiorari, Michael O'Claire appeals an unemployment law judge's determination that O'Claire is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because O'Claire quit his job without good reason caused by his employer and because the procedures used by the unemployment law judge do not amount to violations of the department's rules or O'Claire's right to a fair hearing, we affirm. = = = = A06-2075 In re the Marriage of: Bret Raymond Collier, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Debra Jeanne Collier, Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge In this marital dissolution action, appellant Bret Raymond Collier challenges the district court's division of marital property and award of attorney fees to respondent Carole Jean Nordahl, f/k/a Debra Jean Collier. Because the record supports the district court's decision, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion, but to correct a mathematical error, we modify the district court's order placing a lien against the homestead. Therefore, we affirm as modified. = = = = A06-2128 Helgeson Brothers Partnership, Relator, vs. Douglas County Board of Commissioners, Respondent. MUEHLBERG, Judge Relator appeals respondent's denial of its applications for conditional use permits and plat applications. Because respondent did not err in interpreting the zoning ordinance and its decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. = = = = A06-2145 Jeremiah Bouley, as Trustee for the Heirs of Delight L. Bouley, Deceased, Appellant, vs. Jeffrey C. Windschitl, M.D., et al., Respondents. HUDSON, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's summary judgment in this medical-malpractice action, alleging that respondents hospital and physician failed to evaluate decedent adequately and admit her under a 72-hour hold under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.05, subd. 2(a) (2002). Appellant argues that (1) the district court improperly used a Frye-Mack analysis to evaluate appellant's expert opinions; (2) if the court properly used a Frye-Mack analysis, it abused its discretion by not ordering an evidentiary hearing, and (3) there was a factual dispute as to causation precluding summary judgment. Respondents assert that they are immune from suit under the immunity provision of section 253B. We conclude that because the district court did not use the Frye-Mack test and did not err by granting summary judgment on the basis of lack of causation, we need not reach the immunity issue, and we affirm. = = = = A06-2186 Cathy E. Bassett, Relator, vs. LCS Lawn Service Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MUEHLBERG, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for excessive absences. Relator contends that (1) she was excused from work for every day that she was absent and followed company policy in reporting her absences; (2) domestic abuse provides a good reason for her absence; and (3) she was improperly denied subpoenas to access phone records. We affirm. = = = = A06-2255 Steven Rodlund, Appellant, vs. Laura Gibson, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment for respondent on appellant's claims of an equitable interest in real property and unjust enrichment. We affirm. = = = = A06-2318 Thomas Paun, Appellant, vs. Dolphin Pools, Inc., et al., Defendants, Corrie D. Nelson, et al., Respondents STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order (1) declaring that his 0,434.57 judgment entered jointly and severally against respondents and defendant corporations was satisfied when he acquired respondents' interests in the corporations at a sheriff's sale for ,000; (2) releasing respondents from personal liability on all of the corporate accounts; and (3) making appellant responsible for all corporate debts. By notice of review, respondents challenge the district court's denial of their motion for return of excess levy amounts. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A06-2375 Mary Lou Newcomb, Relator, vs. The Work Connection, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge In this certiorari appeal from the denial of unemployment benefits, Mary Lou Newcomb challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that her reasons for quitting did not constitute a good reason attributable to her employer. Because Newcomb's objections to her employer's training decisions and assignment of job responsibilities do not constitute a good reason for quitting, we affirm. = = = = A06-2382 Andres Arango, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge Relator Andres Arango, acting pro se, challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was not eligible for unemployment benefits during a period when he was attending school full-time. Because we agree that relator was not eligible for benefits during that period, we affirm. = = = = A06-2405 Clifton Hicks, Relator, vs. McDonalds Restaurants of Minnesota Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits, asserting that the ULJ erred by finding that he quit without good reason caused by his employer. Because the ULJ did not err by finding that relator quit his job without good reason caused by the employer, we affirm. = = = = A07-99 Barnabas Araya Yohannes, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Aster Marikos Habtesilassie, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion to reopen the judgment dissolving his marriage to respondent. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm. = = = = A07-0103 Helen Devereaux, et al., Appellants, vs. Kevin K. Stroup, et al., Respondents. ROSS, Judge Appellants Helen and Douglas Devereaux filed a lawsuit asserting legal malpractice and other claims against respondent Kevin Stroup and his law firm for allegedly giving erroneous gifting and tax advice in 1997 and performing negligent litigation services in the consequent lawsuit in 2002. The district court dismissed the Devereauxs' claims on both stated bases as barred by the statute of limitations after it construed the two bases as arising from the same act-Stroup's allegedly inappropriate advice in 1997. Because the two bases arise from two distinct actions, the district court incorrectly applied the same statute-of-limitations deadlines to both. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-291 Barnabus Araya Yohannes, Appellant, vs. Aster Marikos Habtesilassie, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his tort action against respondent, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that a mutual-release provision in the parties' marital-dissolution judgment bars appellant's tort claims. Appellant also claims that the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning him. We affirm. = = = = A07-1280 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.M., R.T., and M.O., Parents. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal challenging the district court's transfer of physical and legal custody of her children, appellant argues that the district court erred in its application of Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201 (2006) by evaluating conditions other than those that led to the out-of-home placement and by failing to consider appellant's condition at the time of the hearing. Appellant also argues that the district court's determination that the children could not be safely returned to her is unsupported by the record. We affirm. = = = = A07-1294 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Erica Clarissa Thomas RANDALL, Judge On appeal from a civil commitment as mentally ill and dangerous for an indeterminate period of time, appellant argues that (1) she did not engage in an overt act causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to another as required for commitment as mentally ill and dangerous under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.02, subd. 17 (2006); (2) the district court's initial findings of fact and conclusions of law do not justify indeterminate commitment as mentally ill and dangerous; and (3) there was insufficient evidence presented at the review hearing to support the district court's decision to commit appellant as mentally ill and dangerous. We affirm. = = = = A07-1368 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joseph William Schulz MINGE, Judge The district court ordered the indeterminate commitment of appellant as both a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Appellant challenges only his commitment as a SPP. Appellant argues that his history does not demonstrate that he is "dangerous" or that he suffers from an "utter lack of control" as required by the SPP commitment statute. He also asserts that because of conflicting expert testimony, the district court erred in finding that there was clear and compelling evidence establishing that he qualifies as a SPP. Because we find that the district court did not err in committing the appellant as a SPP, we affirm. = = = = A07-1479 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ryan Lynn Wilbright KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Ryan Lynn Wilbright was initially committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) on March 15, 2007. At a 60-day review hearing, the district court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for appellant's indeterminate commitment as a SDP and a SPP to treatment at MSOP. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of these findings. 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. |
