| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1070Betty L. Ellison-Harpole, Appellant, vs. Special School District No. 1 a/k/a Minneapolis Public School District, Respondent, Brenda Ring, Respondent. HARTEN, Judge Appellant Betty Ellison-Harpole, a/k/a Betty Tucker, a public school teacher, challenges the summary judgment granted to respondent Special School District No. 1 dismissing appellant's whistleblower and breach of contract claims as unsupported by the evidence and her claims of negligence, negligence per se, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior under the doctrine of vicarious official immunity. We conclude that: (1) appellant's conduct did not constitute a report within the meaning of the Whistleblower Act and evidence does not support the existence of a nexus between her alleged whistleblowing and the district's alleged retaliation; (2) the district court correctly found that no relevant contract existed between the parties; and (3) the school district was entitled to vicarious official immunity. Accordingly, we affirm. = = = = A07-1044 William N. Ruth, Relator, vs. Kristico Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HARTEN, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit without good reason caused by the employer. He argues that he had good reason to quit because his employer (1) provided inadequate compensation and fraudulently misrepresented its earnings in order to limit his pay; (2) breached its leave agreement with him; and (3) failed to provide workers' compensation coverage. He also argues that the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) improperly denied his request for a subpoena. We affirm. = = = = A07-0917 Dean L. Hovey, et al., Appellant, vs. Terrance M. Rooney, et al., Respondents. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellants challenge summary judgment dismissing their breach-of-contract action and claim for an easement by implication or prescription on respondents' lakeshore property. Appellants also challenge denial of their motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of promissory estoppel. We affirm. = = = = A07-0878 Neal Neff, Appellant, vs. Americana Community Bank, defendant and third party plaintiff, Respondent, vs. Nathan Neff, Third Party Defendant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Neal Neff challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent Americana Community Bank on appellant's claim for conversion. We reverse and remand. = = = = A07-0814 Dexter Branwall, Respondent, Eline Branwall, Respondent, vs. Faye A. Hilgart, Defendant, Craig S. Hunter, Appellant, Thomas W. Reed, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellants Craig S. Hunter and Thomas W. Reed applied to the district court for attorney liens and an award of attorney fees in the amount of 3,000, based on contingent-fee agreements signed by respondent Dexter Branwall and his mother in which they agreed to pay 20% of the agreed-upon value of the property recovered. The district court found the contingent-fee agreements unreasonable and instead calculated the fee on an hourly basis, determining that the reasonable value of attorney fees for both attorneys was ,000, which Branwall's mother had already paid. It denied the application for the attorney liens. Because contingent-fee agreements are valid unless procured by fraud, of which there is no evidence; because, although Branwall has cognitive disabilities, he has never been adjudicated incapacitated or deemed incompetent; and because Branwall's mother, who was his attorney-in-fact, also signed the agreements, we reverse and remand for an award of attorney fees pursuant to the contingent-fee agreements and for the imposition of attorney liens. The motion of Hunter and Reed to supplement the record is denied. = = = = A07-0745 In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Independent School District #182, Crosby-Ironton, Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Education Minnesota Crosby Ironton, AFL-CIO, Local 1325, Respondent. JOHNSON, Judge In early 2005, teachers at Crosby-Ironton High School engaged in a strike. When the strike ended, the school district and the teachers' union agreed that "no reprisal, punishment, or action will be taken against a teacher because of a teacher's lawful participation in a teacher's strike." Maureen Morrow participated in the strike. Two months later, she applied to be a Spanish teacher at the high school. She was not hired. An arbitrator found that the school district's decision not to hire Morrow was a breach of the non-reprisal agreement. The school district then commenced an action in district court to vacate the arbitrator's award. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the school district argues that the propriety of its decision not to hire Morrow is not arbitrable. The school district argues in the alternative that, if the matter is arbitrable, the arbitration award is beyond the scope of the arbitrator's authority. We conclude that the parties' dispute is a proper subject of arbitration and that the arbitration award is not beyond the scope of the arbitrator's authority and, therefore, affirm. = = = = A07-0713 Scott Ronald Kish, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's decision affirming revocation of his driving privileges. Appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) holding that his due process rights were not violated by the district court's policy of scheduling implied-consent hearings after resolution of related criminal matters and (2) concluding that the defense of temporary insanity by reason of involuntary intoxication is not available in an implied-consent proceeding. By notice of review, respondent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's finding that appellant proved involuntary intoxication. Because we affirm the district court's holdings that appellant's due process rights were not violated by scheduling practices and that the affirmative defense of temporary insanity by reason of involuntary intoxication is not available in an implied-consent proceeding, we do not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's finding that Kish was involuntarily intoxicated. = = = = A07-0675 Collins Electrical Systems, Inc., d/b/a Collisys, Appellant, vs. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., Respondent, City of Minneapolis, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of its claims for (1) recovery under Minn. Stat. ? 574.29 (2006) against respondent City of Minneapolis; (2) unjust enrichment against respondent Redflex Systems, Inc.; and (3) foreclosure of mechanic's liens against both respondents. Because we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing appellant's claim under Minn. Stat. ? 574.29 and its unjust-enrichment claim, but did not err in dismissing appellant's attempts to foreclose on its mechanic's liens, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A07-0646 Patrick Vizenor, Appellant, vs. Todd Hoffman, et al., Respondents. CONNOLLY, Judge This is an appeal from summary judgment granted in a judicial forfeiture proceeding. Appellant argues that the district court erred by not allowing him to amend his complaint before respondents filed a responsive pleading. He further contends that the district court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata barred his claim based on a settlement agreement in a prior forfeiture action. Finally, he asserts that he never received notice of the forfeiture and therefore cannot be deemed to have waived his right to contest. Because this suit was barred by res judicata, we affirm. = = = = A07-0630 Gerry Fisher, Appellant, v. Larry Jeddeloh, et al., Respondents, Thomas Lehn, Respondent, Paul Larson, Respondent, Alebra Technologies, Inc., Respondent. PORITSKY, Judge Gerry Fisher was removed as Alebra Technologies, Inc.'s CEO shortly after a contested shareholders' vote elected a new board of directors. His suit challenging aspects of this vote was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm. = = = = A07-0628 Steve Camp a/k/a Stephen Camp, Appellant, vs. Dax M. Dickson, Defendant, Precision Closers, Inc., et al., Respondents. HARTEN, Judge Appellant Steve Camp, the seller of a parcel of real property, challenges the judgment dismissing his claims against respondents Precision Closers, Inc. (PC) and Martha Williams, a real estate closing agent and P.C.'s principal. Because respondents were not Camp's agents, neither of them had or breached a duty of disclosure to Camp, and because neither is liable for income taxes incurred by Camp, we affirm. = = = = A07-0610 Riaz Shad, Relator, vs. Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Respondent. CRIPPEN, Judge Respondent Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority terminated relator Riaz Shad's Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments contracts and notified him of its intent to collect overpayments made on behalf of a tenant who committed fraud. On review, relator contends that the lack of a hearing deprived him of his right to due process of law. Relator also contends that the decision was not based on substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. We affirm. = = = = A07-0604 HongShi Li, et al., Appellants, vs. Steven J. Zawadski d/b/a W. F. Bauer Homes, et al., defendants and third party plaintiffs, Respondents, vs. Jody Kainz d/b/a Kainz Construction, third party defendant, Respondent, Lincoln Wood Products, third party defendant, Respondent, Harley Rohlf d/b/a Butch Rohlf Stucco, third party defendant, Respondent, Westurn Cedar and Supply Company d/b/a Westurn Roofing and d/b/a Westurn Roofing and Siding and Westurn Cedar Supply, Inc., third party defendant, Respondent, Hart Masonry, Inc., third party defendant, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellants HongShi Li and Danli Wang challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents Steven J. Zawadski, d/b/a W.F. Bauer Homes; W.F.B., Inc. d/b/a W.F. Bauer Homes, Inc. also d/b/a W.F. Bauer Homes; and Zawadski Homes, Inc. (Bauer). Appellants argue that the district court erred in its application of the statute of limitations on their statutory new-home warranty claims and that material fact issues exist that preclude summary judgment on their claims of negligence and breach of contract. Because we agree that the district court erred in its application of the statute of limitations and because genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary judgment, we reverse and remand. = = = = A07-556 Jack Raymond Sandford, et al., Respondents, vs. City of Hopkins, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Jack Raymond Sandford injured his ankle while skating on an indoor ice rink owned and operated by the City of Hopkins. After he sued to recover damages, the city moved for summary judgment based on recreational-use immunity. The district court denied the motion. In this interlocutory appeal, the city argues that there are no genuine disputes of material fact on Sandford's elements of proof in light of the city's assertion of recreational-use immunity. We conclude that, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the condition of the ice rink was likely to cause death or serious bodily harm or that the city had knowledge of such a condition. Thus, we reverse the district court's denial of the city's motion for summary judgment. = = = = A07-0525 Ishmael B. McReynolds, Relator, vs. Century Tile Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge Ishmael McReynolds appeals, by writ of certiorari, an unemployment law judge's determination that he was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the determination that McReynolds was discharged for failure to abide by his employer's reasonable directives on use of the company vehicle and limitation of personal errands during work hours, we affirm. = = = = A07-0515 A07-1252 Jerald Alan Hammann, Appellant, vs. Falls/Pinnacle, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., Respondents. PETERSON, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellant challenges summary judgment in favor of respondents on appellant's claims seeking sales commissions and other damages in connection with the sales of condominium units and the award of attorney fees, costs, and sanctions to respondents. We affirm. = = = = A07-392 Blia Moua, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Chauncy Moua, Decedent, and Blia Moua, individually, Appellant, v. Joseph F. Hastings, Respondent, Gail Lee Hastings, et al., Respondents HUDSON, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in a wrongful-death action, appellant argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of respondents. We affirm. = = = = A07-0388 Jennifer Gwen Loveland, Respondent, vs. Francis Joseph Brosnan, Appellant. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order denying his motion for modification or elimination of his child-support obligation. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm. = = = = A07-375 County of Freeborn, Appellant, Theresa Mae Book, Plaintiff, vs. Joseph Lenell Walker, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge In this parentage proceeding, the district court vacated paternity and child-support judgments against respondent Joseph Walker and ordered appellant Freeborn County to reimburse respondent for monies that appellant collected from respondent based on the vacated judgments and which appellant then disbursed to the indigent mother of the child who was the subject of the paternity proceeding. Appellant challenges the reimbursement requirement, argues that the district court erroneously considered certain documents submitted by respondent, and the district court should have granted appellant's motion for amended findings of fact. Because appellant failed to serve respondent in this proceeding, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over respondent, the judgments rendered were void, and the district court properly vacated those judgments. Also, the district court's consideration of the documents submitted by respondent, ordering of appellant to reimburse respondent for the monies appellant collected based on the void judgments, and denial of appellant's motion for amended findings were not abuses of its discretion. Therefore, we affirm. = = = = A07-345 Robert L. Revilla, Relator, vs. Transformation House, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. JOHNSON, Judge Robert L. Revilla was a counselor at Transformation House, Inc., a chemical-dependency treatment center in Anoka. An unemployment law judge (ULJ) found that Revilla quit his job without good cause and, thus, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for the period of time following his quit date. Revilla argues that the ULJ made improper credibility determinations and erroneously found that Revilla intended to quit. We affirm. = = = = A07-0088 Loretta Day, Relator, vs. Summit Childcare Center Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge By writ of certiorari, Loretta Day appeals an unemployment law judge's determination that she was discharged from her employment at a childcare center for actions that constituted employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Day was discharged for violating the childcare center's policy by twice using physical force to correct a child's behavior, we affirm. = = = = A07-39 C. Keith McGruder, Relator, vs. Affiliated Group Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge By writ of certiorari, pro se relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the ULJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not affected by an error of law, we affirm. = = = = A06-2377 Marc Brandt, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Michelle Tschida, deceased, Respondent, vs. Western Wisconsin Medical Associates, S.C., d/b/a River Falls Medical Clinic, et al., Appellants, Michael D. McGonigal, M.D., Defendant. JOHNSON, Judge Michelle Tschida died eight days after undergoing gastric bypass surgery. A Ramsey County jury found that Dr. Matthew C. Clayton was negligent in the post-operative care he provided to Tschida in the first three days following the surgery, and the jury further found that his negligence was one of the causes of her death. Dr. Clayton brought post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied. On appeal, Dr. Clayton argues that the plaintiff's expert physician was not qualified to give expert testimony on the applicable standard of care, that the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence, and that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the issue of damages. We conclude that the district court did not commit error and, therefore, affirm. = = = = A06-2163 Lisa A. Schmidt, Relator, vs. Standard Process Equipment, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge This certiorari appeal is from a decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A06-1918 David Roger Williams, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Margaret Mary Williams, Respondent. ROSS, Judge This appeal requires us to assess the district court's decision to modify child support, which it ordered at a sum greater than the statutory presumptive amount. Appellant David Williams argues that the district court erred by finding a change in circumstances that makes his original child-support obligation to respondent Margaret Williams unreasonably and unfairly low. He also contends that the district court abused its discretion by increasing child support to a level in excess of the guidelines amount in an attempt to equalize the parties' incomes and their standards of living. We hold that the district court's factual findings do not support its conclusion that a substantial change in circumstances made the original child-support arrangement unreasonable and unfair. But we remand to allow the parties to address the presumption of a substantial, unfair change in circumstances because that material issue was raised but not decided in the district court. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
