| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSDiane Pelinka,Respondent, vs. Richard Pelinka, Appellant. ROSS, Judge On appeal from the district court's order denying appellant Richard Pelinka's motion to modify his child-support obligation, Richard Pelinka argues that the district court abused its discretion by (a) failing to make a finding of his income; (b) imposing a ,650 monthly child-support obligation without support in the record; and (c) not applying a retroactive reduction of his child-support obligation. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm. = = = = A05-1912 Dennis Winkelman, Relator, vs. Stearns County Planning Commission, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from a conditional-use permit (CUP) decision, relator argues (a) the "denial" is defective because no reasons were given why the site for relator's proposed construction was unacceptable; and (b) the record submitted to the county is factually incorrect and would not support denying the CUP even if adopted as the reasons for the denial. Respondent challenges this court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Because this court has jurisdiction to hear the case, and because appellant has not shown that the county acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner by approving the CUP with the additional condition regarding the placement of the house on the property, we affirm. = = = = A05-2010 In re the Matter of: Sharon Mae Morrissette, f/k/a Sharon Mae Mrutu, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Stephen Aminiel Mrutu, Appellant. RANDALL, Judge On appeal from the district court's grant of an extension of an OFP, pro se appellant-husband argues that the record does not support the district court's findings that he threatened respondent-wife and violated the OFP. We affirm. = = = = A05-2155 Shannon Joseph Hinnenkamp, Relator, vs. Benton County Planning Commission, Respondent. PARKER, Judge Relator Shannon Joseph Hinnenkamp appeals from respondent Benton County Planning Commission's denial of his application for a conditional-use permit (CUP). We affirm. = = = = A05-2169 Raymond Parker, Relator, vs. Commonbond Housing (Corp), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was discharged for misconduct. Because we conclude that relator's conduct clearly displayed a serious violation of the standards of behavior his employer had a right to expect, we affirm. = = = = A05-2204 In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Cedar Fair, an Ohio general partnership, Respondent, vs. Minntertainment Company, Defendant, MOA Entertainment Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from the district court's stay of the parties' arbitration, appellant argues both that arbitration should not have been stayed because the parties' dispute fell within the scope of the parties' arbitration clause and that failing to compel arbitration in this case violates the public policy favoring arbitration. We affirm. = = = = A05-2244 Denise H. Norby, Relator, vs. City of Isle, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. DIETZEN, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's finding that relator engaged in employment misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A05-2251 Jodi Ann Hawkinson, Respondent, vs. Anoka County, et al., Appellants, Anoka-Hennepin EM Narcotics & Violent Crimes Task Force, et al., Defendants. HALBROOKS, Judge This matter arises out of the execution of a search warrant at respondent's home. Respondent brought suit against Anoka County, the Anoka-Hennepin East Metro Narcotics and Violent Crimes Task Force (Task Force), Anoka County Sheriff Larry Podany, and several individual law-enforcement officers, asserting multiple causes of action including assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent training, negligent retention, negligent supervision, and invasion of privacy. Respondent sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. Ruling on defendants' (now appellants') motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, the district court (1) granted summary judgment with respect to the Task Force and dismissed the Task Force as a party; (2) granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, except for Anoka County and Sheriff Podany, on all claims subject to a two-year statute of limitations, including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants as to the invasion-of-privacy claim; (4) granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on claims of liability or vicarious liability, including negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) granted summary judgment on the negligent-training claim; and (6) denied summary judgment to Anoka County and Sheriff Podany on the negligent-supervision and negligent-retention claims. The district court further stated that any claims against individual defendants subject to a six-year statute of limitations, with the exception of negligent infliction of emotional distress, remained. Appellants Anoka County and Sheriff Podany challenge the district court's denial of summary judgment on the negligent-supervision and negligent-retention claims, asserting that the claims are barred by statutory immunity. Appellants also challenge the district court's determination that claims subject to a six-year statute of limitation remain, on the ground that respondent has not properly pleaded such a claim and, further, any such claims would be barred by official immunity and vicarious official immunity. Respondent filed a notice of review, challenging the district court's order dismissing most of her claims. Because we conclude that the district court did not err by dismissing the majority of the respondent's claims, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the appellants are entitled to statutory immunity on the negligent-supervision and negligent-retention claims, we reverse the district court's denial of summary judgment on those claims. = = = = A05-2260 Mohamed Elsherif, et al., Appellants, vs. Allina Hospitals and Clinics, et al., Respondents. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellants, who are Muslim and African-born, challenge the district court's order dismissing their discrimination claims against respondents, who failed to offer them employment as security guards. Appellants allege that the district court made several errors, including a number of evidentiary errors, in considering their allegations of discrimination. We affirm. = = = = A05-2320 Nicholas John Sing, Appellant, vs. 1997 Cadillac, Respondent. PARKER, Judge Appellant Nicholas John Sing appeals the district court's dismissal of his demand for judicial determination of the forfeiture of his vehicle, which was seized in connection with a controlled-substance offense. Because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on Sing's failure to serve the county attorney properly, we affirm. = = = = A05-2328 In re the Marriage of: John Henry Keenan, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Louise Lorene Keenan, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant John Henry Keenan argues that the district court (1) abused its discretion by awarding him and respondent Louise Lorene Keenan joint physical custody of their children; (2) abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay spousal maintenance of 0 per month; (3) erred by classifying a piece of rental property as marital property; and (4) abused its discretion by awarding respondent attorney fees and costs. We affirm. = = = = A05-2384 Sally Renish and Barbara Stanley on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents, vs. Hometown America, L.L.C., d/b/a Rosemount Woods Manufactured Home Community, Appellant. FORSBERG, Judge Appellant Hometown America, the owner and operator of the manufactured home community in which respondents live, challenges the decision of the district court granting a permanent injunction and partial summary judgment in favor of respondents. Appellant argues that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel and in determining on the merits that imposing separate utility bills was a substantial modification to the lease and was arbitrary and capricious under Minn. Stat. ?? 327C.02, subd. 2, .05 (2004). Because the district court correctly ruled on the merits as a matter of law, we affirm. = = = = A05-2467 Marie Guess, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Michael L. Guess, Appellant, vs. Mark Priore, Special Administrator for the Estate of Richard E. Conry, deceased, Defendant, Aviation Charter, Inc., et al., Respondents. HUDSON, Judge This is an appeal of the district court's grant of summary judgment on appellant's lawsuit against respondent Aviation Charter for defense and indemnity of appellant's claims against the co-employee's estate under Minn. Stat. ? 181.970, subd. 1 (2004), and on appellant's lawsuit against respondent Beech Transportation for vicarious liability under Minn. Stat. ? 360.0216 (2004). Because the employer and the co-employee were immune from suit pursuant to the workers' compensation law, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, and we affirm. = = = = A06-60 In re the Marriage of: Randall M. Johnson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Deidre C. Johnson Appellant, RANDALL, Judge In this dissolution appeal, appellant-mother challenges the district court's determination on custody, arguing that the court-appointed custody evaluator's report reflected impermissible bias and that the district court improperly adopted respondent-father's proposed findings on custody. Appellant also argues that the district court erred in its findings on the duration and amount of maintenance and should have awarded her attorney fees. We conclude the record does not reflect improper bias on the part of the custody evaluator, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining custody and maintenance, and did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees. We affirm. = = = = A06-66 Deb Forthun, et al., Appellants, vs. Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent, Waseca County Department of Human Services, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's order affirming the Commissioner of Human Services' decision that they must reimburse the county for part of the cost of their son's out-of-home placement. Appellants contend that they did not have the opportunity to be heard regarding their ability to pay and that they do not have the ability to pay because, although the county is seeking income that is attributable to their son, the claim was asserted eight months after the last income attributable to their son was received. Because the commissioner did not err in the determination that equitable estoppel is inapplicable to this case or in the interpretation of Minn. Stat. ? 256B.35 (2004), we affirm the commissioner on those issues. But because appellants did not have an opportunity to be heard on the issue of their ability to support their son and the court made no findings on this issue and because the applicability of Minn. Stat. ? 256M.60, subd. 6, has not been addressed, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. = = = = A06-91 In re the Marriage of: Mark William Carroll, Respondent, vs. Desiree Lucille Boeltl, Appellant. ROSS, Judge In this appeal in a parenting-time and custody dispute, appellant-mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) modifying the parties' custody arrangement without making the proper or adequately supported findings; (2) rejecting a family-court officer's recommendation and imposing a parenting-time schedule; and (3) imposing a child-support obligation. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A06-120 The County of Dakota, (C.P. 28-15), petitioner, Respondent, vs. Gopher Smelting and Refining Co., et al., Respondents Below, William Stoerzinger, Appellant Re: Parcels 4, 4A and 4B, Map 273. WILLIS, Judge In this appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that the district court erred by declining to reform a quitclaim deed. Because appellant failed to provide the clear and consistent, unequivocal and convincing evidence necessary for reformation of a deed, we affirm. = = = = A06-212 In re the Marriage of: Carolyn Sue Moore, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Randall Scott Moore, Appellant. PARKER, Judge The parenting plan included in the judgment dissolving the marriage of appellant-father Randall Moore and respondent-mother Carolyn Moore equally apportions parenting time between the parties and awards them joint legal custody, but does not identify the children's physical custodian(s). On appeal from the district court's denial of father's motion for sole custody, father argues that he made a prima facie case to modify custody entitling him to an evidentiary hearing, that the district court should not have replaced the parties' parenting consultant, and that the modification of parenting time is flawed because he was entitled to a hearing on the subject and because the record does not support the district court's reapportioning of parenting time. We affirm. = = = = A06-659 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Brian Peter Braaten. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from an order for indeterminate civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person and sexual psychopathic personality, Brian Braaten contends that, because he completed a sex-offender treatment program while incarcerated, commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program violates his substantive due process rights and constitutes double jeopardy. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's determination that Braaten satisfies the statutory criteria for commitment, that Braaten did not meet his burden of showing that a feasible less-restrictive-placement alternative exists, and that commitment is neither arbitrary nor for punitive purposes, 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 Lawyer 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. |
