| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1954In re the Marriage of: Francis Terrance Higgins, Jr., petitioner, Respondent, vs. Sabrina Lynn Fritz, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge In the most recent stage of this contentious custody dispute, appellant challenges the denial of her last motion for a change of custody and related relief. There being no merit in her various claims of error in the district court's order, we affirm. = = = = A07-1916 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Al Stone Folson TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Al Stone Folson challenges the district court's determination that he continues to be a sexually dangerous person (SDP), with no less-restrictive alternative than indeterminate commitment. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting appellant's juvenile records in this civil-commitment proceeding, and because the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that appellant has engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct and that he is highly likely to reoffend by engaging in harmful sexual conduct, we affirm. = = = = A07-1892 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremy Neil Bartholomew a/k/a Jeremy Neil Kienert TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Jeremy Neil Bartholomew, a/k/a Jeremy Neil Kienert, challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) on the ground that the district court made insufficient findings. Because the district court made extensive findings that support the commitment and are not clearly erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A07-1531 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Allison Fischer TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Allison Fischer challenges two orders issued by the district court, one committing her as mentally ill and the other authorizing the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication, contending that the evidence does not support the district court's findings and that the orders violate her constitutional rights. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's determination that appellant presents a substantial likelihood of harm to herself and refuses to comply with treatment or take medication, and because the orders do not violate appellant's constitutional rights, we affirm. = = = = A07-849 Verna M. Cyrette, as Trustee for the heirs of Damien Anderson, deceased, Appellant, vs. Velcommen Village, Inc., Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's judgment dismissing her complaint based upon appellant's failure to file an affidavit of expert review or affidavit of identification of expert witnesses. Appellant argues that such affidavits were not required because (1) respondent was not an institution entitled to the protection of Minn. Stat. ? 145.682 (2006); (2) the employee whose actions were alleged to have caused the harm was not a licensed health-care professional; (3) the lack of care resulting in the harm was care that could have been provided by any person at any location; and (4) a jury hearing the evidence would not require the assistance of expert testimony to decide the issues of standard of care, breach, and causation. We affirm. = = = = A07-0793 Carlene Yvonne Nistler, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Terrance Roger Nistler, II, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant father challenges the denial of his motion to reduce his child-support obligation and arrears, arguing that he was denied due process of law at the hearing and the child-support magistrate (CSM) abused her discretion by (1) finding that having the child live in his home had not satisfied his support obligation and (2) in denying his motion to reduce his ongoing support obligation. We affirm. = = = = A07-0687 Northfield Telecommunications, Inc., d/b/a Advanced Wireless, Appellant, vs. Maplewood Mall Associates, Ltd. Partnership, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in a commercial landlord-tenant action, appellant-tenant challenges the district court's dismissal of its claims of breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud in the inducement. On the breach-of-contract claim, appellant argues that the lease was ambiguous concerning the number of rent reductions owed to appellant under the lease and any ambiguity in the lease should be construed against respondent-landlord, who drafted it. Because we agree that the district court properly dismissed the claims relating to fraud in the inducement and breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, we affirm. We also affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the eviction claim. However, because the district court failed to consider a letter sent by appellant to respondent under a provision of the lease that would have triggered a rent reduction, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the breach-of-contract claim. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-0643 Stephen A. Burdette, Relator, vs. BCBSM, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PORITSKY, Judge The unemployment law judge (ULJ) determined that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed employment misconduct. In this pro se certiorari appeal, relator challenges the ULJ's decision, arguing that (1) the ULJ's factual findings are unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the ULJ misinterpreted Minn. Stat. ? 268.095 (2006); (3) the ULJ failed to consider relator's employment record; (4) relator was given insufficient time to prepare for the hearing before the ULJ; and (5) the ULJ erred in ignoring relator's status as a member of a protected class. We affirm. = = = = A07-642 Loretta Jane Jenson, Relator, vs. Grove Homes Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On certiorari appeal from the unemployment-law judge's decision that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, relator argues that the decision was in error because she quit for a good reason caused by her employer. Because the unemployment-law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. = = = = A07-0611 Nancy C. Levang, Relator, vs. TCG Incorporated, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. COLLINS, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the ULJ that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by the employer. Relator argues that she did not quit because (a) she was under no obligation to request another position upon completion of her job assignment; and (b) her assignment was not suitable. She also contends that she had good reason to quit because her employer intentionally prevented her from obtaining permanent employment. Because relator did not offer the evidence of good reason to quit until after the original hearing, and because the ULJ did not err in declining to grant an additional hearing, we affirm as to the issue of good reason to quit. But because the ULJ failed to consider whether relator's previous assignment was suitable, we reverse and remand. = = = = A07-0509 Willy J. Alexis, Relator, vs. G2 Secure Staff LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. COLLINS, Judge Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was discharged for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. = = = = A07-0493 In re the Marriage of: Leah Grace Staquet, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Paul John Staquet, Appellant, and Pennington County, Intervenor. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant-father filed a notice of appeal challenging the order of the child support magistrate granting father's motion for modification of his child-support obligation. However, father failed to brief any issues related to that order, or raise any issues which are properly before this court. Accordingly his appeal is dismissed. Respondent-mother, by a notice of review, challenges the same order of the CSM granting appellant-father's motion for modification of child support. Because the child support magistrate abused his discretion in granting the motion, we reverse. = = = = A07-0198 In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Stifel, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Daniel Charles Stifel, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Challenging the amount of the district court's spousal maintenance and child support determinations, appellant Daniel Stifel contends that the court made erroneous findings on matters relating to his ability to pay and respondent Brenda Stifel's needs. There being no showing of error on this ground or others, we affirm. But because the parties agree that the child-support award could exceed the statutory cap, we reduce appellant's monthly child-support obligation to the statutory guideline amount. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
