| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1414Amy Lisa Haag, Respondent, vs. Jonathan Richard Jacklitch, Appellant ROSS, Judge Jonathan Jacklitch appeals the district court's denial of his motion to modify custody of the parties' minor child, K.J., without an evidentiary hearing. Because Jacklitch did not make a prima facie showing to support his motion for endangerment-based modification of custody, we affirm. = = = = A07-0683 Rachael Lundquist, Appellant, vs. Rice Memorial Hospital, Respondent. MUEHLBERG, Judge Appellant was discharged from her position as a nurse at Rice Memorial Hospital after she sustained a neck injury and filed a workers' compensation claim. After appellant presented her evidence at trial, the district court dismissed her claim for retaliatory discharge. Because the district court properly determined that appellant was being discharged for being unable to perform her job and that she failed to establish that she was discharged in retaliation for filing for workers' compensation benefits, we affirm. = = = = A07-0539 Vanessa Dawn Moore, Relator, vs. Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Vanessa Dawn Moore appeals from the Commissioner of Human Services' denial of her request to reconsider her disqualification from working in any position allowing direct contact with individuals receiving services from certain state-licensed facilities. Relator argues that the commissioner erred in denying her request because (1) the predicate conviction on which her disqualification is based is ten years old; (2) the disqualification has caused her financial hardship; (3) she has proven that she does not pose a risk of harm; and (4) her former employer is eager to have her return to work. We affirm. = = = = A07-0386 Dean Gary Sternhagen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Dean Gary Sternhagen challenges the district court's order upholding the cancellation of his driver's license for his violation of the requirement that he totally abstain from alcohol. Appellant argues that the Commissioner of Public Safety presented insufficient evidence to support the cancellation where appellant (1) presented testimony that he did not consume alcohol; (2) did not admit to consuming alcohol; and (3) was not tested for alcohol consumption. We affirm. = = = = A07-0368 Makiya K. Bunisso, Relator, vs. Masterson Personnel, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is not entitled to unemployment benefits because she quit her employment by failing to contact respondent after the job to which it had assigned her was completed. Because the "Assignment Request Policy" notice that respondent presented to relator did not conform to Minn. Stat. ? 268.095, subd. 2(d) (2004), we reverse. = = = = A07-0207 D.R. Horton, Inc.-Minnesota, a Delaware corporation, Appellant vs. Frederick Radintz, et al., Respondents, Carla Manuel, et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge This appeal involves a contract dispute between appellant D.R. Horton, Inc. and numerous individually named respondents, collectively the "sellers." After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract, D.R. Horton failed to properly exercise its option to purchase the sellers' land. D.R. Horton challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the sellers, arguing that the district court misconstrued unambiguous contract language. We reverse and remand. = = = = A07-200 Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., Appellant, vs. Gabbert & Gabbert Company, L. P., Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal in this commercial-lease dispute, appellant argues that (1) the district court's reading of the parties' lease to allow respondent to subtract real property from the shopping-center tract is inconsistent with the lease terms and rules of contract interpretation; and (2) the district court's conclusion that appellant failed to show sufficient harm for a permanent injunction is inconsistent with the court's findings of fact. Because the district court did not err in interpreting the lease, and the findings of fact adequately support the conclusion and denial of a permanent injunction, we affirm. = = = = A07-182 The Travelers Indemnity Company, et al., Respondents, vs. Bloomington Steel and Supply Company, et al., Defendants, Jose Padilla, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents, claiming that fact issues preclude summary judgment and that the district court erred in its application of the law. Respondents have moved to strike portions of appellant's brief and appendix, to strike a statement made by appellant's counsel at oral argument, and for attorney fees. We affirm, grant respondents' motion to strike portions of appellant's brief and appendix, find it unnecessary to rule on their motion to strike a statement made at oral argument, and deny their motion for attorney fees. = = = = A07-155 Lester Building Systems, a division of Butler Manufacturing Company, et al., Respondents, vs. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant-manufacturer claims that the district court should have ruled that, as a matter of law, respondents-sellers were not entitled to recover damages for the cost to repair buildings belonging to respondents' customers when those customers had already settled with the manufacturer. Because Minnesota law does not permit repair-cost damages under these circumstances, we reverse the jury's .2 million repair-cost award. = = = = A07-147 In re: The Estate of James L. Peka, In re: The Conservatorship of April Marie Peka, In re: The Matter of the Trust Created by the Last Will and Testament of: James L. Peka Dated May 11, 2004 ROSS, Judge This appeal involves the district court's construction of a will that expressly forbids appellant Debra Peka and her mother from ever residing in testator James Peka's home. The will left all of James Peka's property in trust for his and Debra Peka's daughter. Debra Peka, whose marriage to James Peka ended before his death, twice tried to purchase the home, once personally and once in her capacity as her daughter's conservator. She also tried to compel her daughter's trust to begin making child-support payments due from the estate. The district court prohibited both attempted home purchases and refused to compel the trust to make child-support payments. The district court also disqualified the conservatorship's attorney because it found a conflict of interest between the conservatorship's attorney and Debra Peka's personal attorney, who are partners in the same law firm. Because the will bars the sale of the home to Debra Peka, and because James Peka's social-security benefits cover his estate's child-support obligation, we affirm the district court's judgment regarding the financial dispute. We also affirm the district court's conflict-based disqualification of the conservatorship's attorney. = = = = A07-0127 Pamela J. Shackleford, Relator, vs. Contingent Work Force Solutions LLC, 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 misconduct for falsifying her time sheets, arguing that she acted pursuant to her supervisor's directions and contending that the ULJ was unfair. We affirm. = = = = A06-2418 Kimberly A. Mosman as successor to Wayne L. Mosman, et al., Appellants, vs. Lindquist & Vennum, P. L. L. P., et al., Respondents. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of respondents, appellants argue that (1) the district court erred by applying the "but for" causation legal standard in a case alleging transactional legal malpractice; (2) even if the district court applied the correct legal standard, there are genuine issues of material fact as to "but for" causation; (3) the district court abused its discretion by denying appellants' motion to expedite the trial; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by awarding costs and disbursements to respondents. We affirm. = = = = A06-2416 Wendy Lea Ringwelski, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's decision sustaining the revocation of her driving privileges after her DWI arrest, arguing that the district court erred by finding that the police officer did not interfere with her right to an additional test of her alcohol concentration. We affirm. = = = = A06-2360 In re the Marriage of: Jeanette Juana Dalseth, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Stephen Errol Dalseth, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Jeanette Dalseth challenges the district court order denying her motion to compel discovery responses, arguing that the statute of limitations has not run on enforcement of a 1994 property division because the judgment did not state a time for completing the division and contained a clause reserving the court's jurisdiction over the marital assets "pending implementation" of the division. Because the judgment did not postpone enforcement of the division, the district court did not err in refusing further process in appellant's enforcement proceedings. = = = = A06-2264 County of Blue Earth, Appellant, vs. Russell H. Vigness, Respondent, PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from an order that (1) grants appellant's motion for an order finding respondent Russell H. Vigness in contempt of court; (2) denies appellant's motion for an order finding respondent Brunz of Southern Minnesota Construction Co., Inc. in contempt of court; and (3) denies appellant's motion for sanctions against either respondent. We affirm. = = = = A06-2117 Paul W. Welsh, et al., Respondents, vs. Anthony J. DeMars, et al., Appellants. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from an order confirming the validity of respondents' easement over their property, appellants challenge the district court's ruling that the Marketable Title Act, Minn. Stat. ? 541.023 (2006), does not preclude respondents from enforcing the easement. Because we conclude that the district court did not err, we affirm. = = = = A06-2068 In re the Matter of: Julie Lynn North, Respondent, vs. Brian Douglas Larson, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant requests review of the district court's denial of his request to vacate a default judgment that determined his obligations and rights as a father and awarded attorney fees to respondent mother. Appellant asserts that the district court abused its discretion in finding that his failure to participate in the hearing was not excusable neglect as provided in Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02(a). Because we conclude that the district court did not properly apply the rule and that appellant meets the excusable-neglect standard, 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. |
