| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1650Ahmed Demmaj, Appellant, vs. Grace M. Elasky, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant contract-for-deed vendee contends that the district court erred in ordering the release to respondent vendor of sums deposited in connection with appellant's declaratory-judgment action challenging a cancellation of the contract. Because the court had the authority to require a bond deposit and to determine the scope of its coverage, the court did not err in ordering the release of the deposit to cover items other than contract-for-deed arrearages. Accordingly, we affirm. = = = = A06-1661 In the Matter of the Findings of Abuse by D.F.C., Appellant, vs. Minnesota Commissioner of Health, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges respondent's determination that (1) the department of health proved by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant abused a vulnerable adult; and (2) appellant's disqualification from positions involving direct contact with persons receiving services from certain programs was proper. Appellant argues that respondent's determinations were not supported by substantial evidence and that respondent erred by failing to address the applicability of the therapeutic-conduct exception to the definition of abuse. Because we find that respondent's determinations were not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse. = = = = A06-1968 Susan J. Davis, Respondent, vs. St. Ann's Home, Appellant, vs. Kent Gaidis, d/b/a Kent's Carpet, Third-Party Defendant. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court order denying its motion for posttrial relief and resulting judgment awarding respondent damages for injuries she sustained as a result of a slip and fall accident, arguing that it did not owe respondent any duty regarding open and obvious conditions at appellant's assisted-living facility, that respondent's claims are barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk, and that the district court erred in its application of the collateral source rule. We affirm. = = = = A06-2274 Richard L. Anderson, Relator, vs. Cabela's Retails, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct for breach of loyalty after attempting to purchase guns from his employer through a third person for substantially less than their actual value. Because the unemployment law judge did not err by deciding that relator was discharged for unemployment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-2354 In the Matter of the Application of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator Myer Shark contends that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's decision to approve an increase in electric utility rates is arbitrary and capricious because it includes a tax cost that the utility may never incur and establishes an effective date that violates conditions imposed under an earlier order of the commission. We affirm. = = = = A06-2422 Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., Plaintiff, vs. American Muslim Community Center, Appellant, Mohamed R. El-Gamal, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Rishma Adam, et al., Third Party Defendants, Kallas & Associates, Ltd., Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant contends that the district court erred in applying the law of apparent authority by ordering appellant to pay respondent law firm for legal services. Because we conclude that appellant's former president and director lacked apparent authority at the time that he retained respondent, purportedly on behalf of appellant, we reverse. = = = = A07-61 County of Anoka, ex rel Alena M. Hubacher, Appellant, vs. Djan M. Davis, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant County of Anoka, appearing on behalf of Alena M. Hubacher, challenges the district court's denial of its motion to hold respondent, Djan M. Davis, in contempt for failure to pay child support. Because the record provides support for the decision, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm. = = = = A07-0074 Samantha Jane Gemberling, Respondent, vs. Karl Hampton, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the child support magistrate's denial of his motion for modification of child support. And respondent moves to strike portions of appellant's reply brief. We affirm the denial of the modification motion and deny respondent's motion to strike. = = = = A07-0130 Kim M. Foss, Relator, vs. St. Luke's Hospital Association of Duluth, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment judge's decision that she quit her employment without good reason caused by the employer and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record supports the finding of a quit and there was no error of law, we affirm. = = = = A07-0180 David Peterson, Respondent, vs. Industrial Door Company, Inc., d/b/a Industrial Spring Company, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Respondent David Peterson was injured on the job and brought a product liability claim against his employer, appellant Industrial Door Company. The district court granted appellant partial summary judgment on respondent's claims against it in its capacity as employer, but denied summary judgment on respondent's product liability claims asserted against appellant in its capacity as manufacturer/designer. Appellant challenges this decision, arguing that the district court erred in determining that it continued to have subject matter jurisdiction over respondent's claims against appellant. We affirm. = = = = A07-0209 In the Matter of the Claim for Benefits by Peter L. Dahl. LANSING, Judge While employed as a deputy sheriff in Rice County, Peter Dahl sustained an injury by falling backward into a chair during a discussion with the sheriff. The Public Safety Officers Benefit Eligibility Panel determined that Dahl's occupational duties and professional responsibilities put him at risk for the type of injury he sustained and therefore approved his claim for continued health-insurance benefits from the county. Because the panel's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious, we affirm. = = = = A07-0260 In re the Marriage of: Michael D. Werner, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Judy R. Werner, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Michael D. Werner challenges the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator showed evident partiality. Because appellant failed to establish facts that would create a reasonable impression of partiality, the district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award. We therefore affirm the district court's order. = = = = A07-286 Leyla Tarlan, Respondent, vs. Alan Sorensen, f/k/a Mourits Alan Sorensen, Appellant. ROSS, Judge Appellant Alan Sorensen and respondent Leyla Tarlan have three children together. Sorensen, who had primary physical custody and sole legal custody of the three children, began regularly weighing their nine-year-old daughter and refused to allow Tarlan to pay for the older son's necessary orthodontic treatment. The district court granted Tarlan's motion for sole legal and physical custody and ordered Sorensen to undergo a psychological assessment. Sorensen argues that the district court's factual findings of endangerment are unsupported by the record. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to undergo a psychological assessment without notice and a hearing. Because the district court's factual findings are supported by the record, we affirm its order modifying custody. But the district court's order that Sorensen comply with recommendations made after a future psychological assessment was improperly issued because Sorensen was given no opportunity to be heard. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-1459 Thor Kenneth Miner, Appellant, vs. Cal R. Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Thor Kenneth Miner was committed indeterminately as mentally ill and dangerous (MI&D) but has been living in the community independently since 2001, pursuant to a provisional discharge. He petitioned for full discharge from his commitment and after the judicial appeal panel affirmed the decision by the Commissioner of Human Services to deny his petition, he brought this appeal. Because the evidence supports the determination that appellant has satisfied the criteria for full discharge, we reverse. = = = = A07-1459 Thor Kenneth Miner, Appellant, vs. Cal R. Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Thor Kenneth Miner was committed indeterminately as mentally ill and dangerous (MI&D) but has been living in the community independently since 2001, pursuant to a provisional discharge. He petitioned for full discharge from his commitment and after the judicial appeal panel affirmed the decision by the Commissioner of Human Services to deny his petition, he brought this appeal. Because the evidence supports the determination that appellant has satisfied the criteria for full discharge, we reverse. = = = = A07-1564 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Bradley Wayne Foster. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges his commitment as a sexually-dangerous person and a sexual-psychopathic personality, arguing that the findings are clearly erroneous and that Minn. Stat. ? 253B.18, subd. 2 (2006), violates his constitutional right to due process of law. 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. |
