| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1648Caroline M. Rice, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Brent R. Rice, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this marital dissolution, appellant wife argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) awarding respondent husband sole physical custody of three of the parties' children, (2) denying her motion for a continuance and (3) awarding her insufficient attorney fees. Appellant also argues that this court should vacate the property award made in the dissolution judgment. We affirm. = = = = A06-2231 Brenda F. Reed, Relator, vs. Pinnacle Financial Group, Inc., Respondent, and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Brenda Reed appeals the decision of the Department of Employment and Economic Development denying her request for unemployment benefits after Reed was discharged from employment for leaving work early in violation of her employer's procedure requiring written requests for time off from work. Because the unemployment law judge's finding that Reed's unapproved early departure from work is supported by the record and constitutes employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-2367 Cy Edmonta B.Wilson, Relator, vs. Ikea Burbank, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge By writ of certiorari, relator, Cy Edmonta B. Wilson, challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the record reasonably supports the ULJ's final decision and relator's conduct constituted employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-2368 In re the Marriage of: Thomas Eugene Broome, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Sandra Marie Wedmann, f/k/a Sandra Marie Broome, f/k/a Sandra Marie Lambrecht, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the modification of his monthly child-support obligation on the grounds that the child-support magistrate (CSM) erred by not applying the Hortis/Valento formula and because the CSM did not make the factual findings necessary to justify this deviation. Because we conclude that the proper findings were not made, we reverse and remand. = = = = A06-2384 John B. Erickson, Relator, vs. Jackson Landscape, Respondent, and Department of Employment and Economic Development Respondent. ROSS, Judge John Erickson's employer discharged him because he failed to obtain a required driver's license and because he used company vehicles without authority. Erickson challenges an unemployment law judge's decision that he lacked good cause for failing to appear at the evidentiary hearing at which he could have presented evidence to the Department of Employment and Economic Development relevant to his claim for unemployment benefits, and that he therefore was not entitled to another evidentiary hearing. Erickson also challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because the unemployment law judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the request for a second hearing and his determination of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is a correct application of law, we affirm. = = = = A06-2465 Nadene Lynch, Relator, vs. Wal-Mart Associates Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge On writ of certiorari, relator challenges an unemployment law judge's decision that relator was properly disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator argues that she is entitled to unemployment benefits because she had good reason caused by her employer to quit. Because relator's employer offered termination with severance pay and altered every component of relator's employment, all to her disadvantage, we reverse. = = = = A07-0020 Metro Paving, Inc., Appellant, vs. Michael Luedeman, et al., Respondents WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's entry of judgment after remand, arguing that our previous decision on appeal was clearly erroneous. We affirm. = = = = A07-0082 Jennifer Susan Kline, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Jennifer Susan Kline challenges the district court's order sustaining the revocation of her driving license, arguing that the officer who stopped her acted illegally. Because we conclude that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion for stopping appellant, we affirm. = = = = A07-0105, A07-0107, A07-0108 City of Lonsdale, Minnesota, Respondent (A07-105, A07-108), Appellant (A07-107) vs. NewMech Companies, Inc., et al., defendants and third-party plaintiffs, Respondents (A07-105, A07-107), Appellants (A07-108), vs. BNR Excavating, Inc., Appellant (A07-105), Third-Party Defendant (A07-107), Respondent (A07-108). WRIGHT, Judge This is a consolidated appeal in which each party challenges a different aspect of the district court's judgment. After a bench trial, the district court found that general contractor NewMech Companies, Inc. (NewMech) breached a bidding contract with the City of Lonsdale (city) and was liable for the amount of the bid bond but that subcontractor BNR Excavating, Inc., (BNR) was liable to NewMech for one-half that amount. The city challenges the measure of damages for NewMech's breach, arguing that the district court misconstrued the contract. NewMech challenges its liability for the breach, arguing that the district court erroneously found that it failed to prove its unilateral-mistake defense. NewMech also challenges the measure of BNR's third-party liability, arguing that the district court erred by finding that NewMech's conduct contributed to the breach of its contract with the city. Finally, BNR challenges its third-party liability to NewMech, arguing that the evidence does not support the district court's finding that NewMech justifiably relied on its subcontractor bid. We affirm. = = = = A07-124 Jeffery Scott Sather and Anne Valerie Moon Sather, for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Margaret A. Moon Sather, Preston J. Sather and Lowell J. Moon Sather, Appellants, vs. Vincent W. King, et al., Respondents. ROSS, Judge This appeal concerns the district court's summary judgment decision dismissing a legal malpractice claim that arises from Respondent Vincent King's representation of appellants Jeffrey and Anne Sather. King represented the Sathers in their claims against State Farm Insurance Company for coverage of mold damage. The Sathers contend that King was negligent by failing to discover a State Farm operations manual, which the Sathers argue would have established coverage for their claims, and by failing to argue that a "resulting loss exception" in their homeowners' policy provided for coverage of the claims. Because we conclude that the policy unambiguously did not provide coverage of the Sathers' mold claims, we hold that King was not negligent in failing to discover the manual for use as extrinsic evidence of the policy's interpretation. Because King did argue that the policy's resulting loss exception applied, we hold that King cannot be found negligent for failing to raise the argument. Finally, because the Sathers do not show that but for King's actions they would have prevailed in their claims against State Farm, they do not meet the elements of proof for their legal malpractice claim, and we affirm. = = = = A07-232 Neng Por Yang, Appellant, vs. Terry Nutter, Defendant, Minneapolis Police Department, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Pro se appellant alleges that the district court erred by granting respondent City of Minneapolis's motion for summary judgment. Because the district court properly applied the law, we affirm. = = = = A07-0686 In re the Marriage of: Kenneth Roland Olson, Sr., petitioner, Appellant, vs. Sharon Ann Olson, Respondent. LANSING, Judge This appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment raises the single issue of whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined Kenneth Olson's ability to pay spousal maintenance by averaging his income over a four-year period instead of calculating it based on the first six months of the dissolution year. Because the record establishes that the cyclical nature of the mortgage industry causes fluctuations in Kenneth Olson's income from his employment as a mortgage lender, the district court did not abuse its discretion by averaging his income, and we affirm. = = = = A07-1349 In re the Marriage of: Mark William Carroll, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Desiree Lucille Boeltl, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges a district court order modifying her parenting time and child-support obligation. Appellant also challenges the district court's refusal to award judgment for her as a result of her overpayment of child support. We affirm as modified. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
