| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSIn re the Marriage of:Michael Joseph Saul, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Danetta Parker Saul, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal in this dissolution matter, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to credit her in the property division with certain private-school tuition she paid for the parties' children; (2) overvaluing certain retirement funds and not accounting for certain taxes on those funds; (3) failing to treat a certain tax obligation incurred by appellant as marital; (4) understating the marital portion of an investment account; (5) overstating the marital portion of her retirement plan and failing to properly account for the taxes due on those funds; and (6) finding that respondent adequately traced his nonmarital interest in a business. Because we find no clear error in the district-court findings, we affirm. = = = = A05-2079 ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, et al., Appellants, vs. KMG America Corporation, a Virginia company, et al., Respondents. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellants ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation, and ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York corporation (collectively ReliaStar), challenge the denial of their motion for a temporary injunction seeking to enjoin respondents KMG America Corporation, a Virginia company, Kanawha Insurance Company, a South Carolina company, Kenneth Kuk, T. J. Gibb, Paul Kraemer, and Paul Moore from misappropriating ReliaStar's trade secrets and using confidential information in breach of the common-law duty of loyalty and breach of fiduciary duty. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm its denial of a temporary injunction. = = = = A05-2115 Sia Yang, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Relator challenges the decision that he was unable to work and, therefore, ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because the record shows that relator was unable to work only in the health-care industry but not other industries, we reverse. = = = = A05-2188 A05-2474 Connie Phyllis Gustafson, petitioner, Appellant (A05-2188), Gregory Wayne Helland, petitioner, Appellant (A05-2474), vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. LANSING, Judge The district court, in separate proceedings, sustained the revocation of Connie Gustafson's and Gregory Helland's driving privileges for driving while impaired. In these consolidated appeals, both challenge the admissibility of alcohol-concentration-test results that were obtained following the administration of a preliminary screening test that indicated an alcohol concentration greater than 0.08. Because the police officer in each case administered the screening test according to the requirements of Minn. Stat. ? 169A.41 (2004) and consistent with the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, we affirm. = = = = A05-2219 In re the Marriage of: Lori Irene Busch, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Rob Dee Busch, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge In this appeal from a dissolution judgment, appellant challenges the district court's calculation of the parties' marital and nonmarital interests in the parties' real property and the division of the marital interest in the parties' homestead. Because the district court did not make the findings that are necessary for us to review its determination of the parties' marital and nonmarital interest in the parties' homestead, we reverse and remand. = = = = A05-2225 In re PEMSTAR, Inc. Derivative Litigation. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from a judgment approving a settlement in a shareholder derivative action, appellant, who objected to the proposed settlement, argues that the district court (a) erred in holding that appellant lacked standing to object to the proposed settlement; (b) erred in ruling that the notice of settlement complied with the requirements of due process; (c) abused its discretion in ruling that the settlement agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate because the court failed to perform the required analysis or create an adequate record for judicial review; and (d) failed to ensure that the named plaintiffs had standing to settle the lawsuit. Because we conclude that appellant lacked standing to object to the settlement agreement, we affirm and decline to address the remaining issues. = = = = A06-11 Priscilla Womack, Appellant, Nelson Womack, Appellant, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's summary judgment dismissing their employment-discrimination claims. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether respondent engaged in unfair discriminatory practices, we affirm. = = = = A06-93 Catherine M. Sinn, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sherri L. DeWald, Deceased, Appellant, vs. Merianne Gerving, Respondent. PARKER, Judge Respondent Gerving held a birthday party for her 16-year-old daughter, at which there was underage drinking. Sherri DeWald, daughter of appellant Sinn, was killed as she played on nearby railroad tracks after Gerving asked the party attendees to leave her home. Sinn brought a wrongful-death action alleging negligent supervision and negligent eviction by Gerving. Sinn contends that the district court, in granting Gerving's motion for summary judgment, erred (1) in ruling that Sinn's claim was preempted by the Civil Damages Act, Minn. Stat. ? 340A.801 (2002) and (2) in denying Sinn's motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. We affirm. = = = = A06-569 In re the Marriage of: Todd S. Wheeler, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Julie Ann Wheeler, n/k/a Julie Ann Thesing, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Todd S. Wheeler challenges the district court's denial of his motion for review of an order from a child support magistrate (CSM) that denied appellant's motion for an order requiring respondent Julie Ann Wheeler, n/k/a Julie Ann Thesing, to contribute to the boarding school expenses of the parties' child. Because we see no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial, we affirm. = = = = A06-803 SaberLee DeMare, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services, Respondent, Lake County Welfare Board, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant SaberLee DeMare challenges an agency decision and district court order interpreting Minn. Stat. ? 256B.0625, subd. 3a (Supp. 2005), which precludes medical-assistance coverage of sex-reassignment surgery. Appellant argues that (1) respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services erred by interpreting the statute to bar coverage for appellant, who filed a request for surgery but whose request had not yet been reviewed by the statute's effective date; and (2) the district court erred by failing to address his equal protection claim under Minnesota law. We affirm respondent's decision and remand to the district court for consideration of appellant's equal protection claim. = = = = A06-255 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. B. and W. S., Parents. WRIGHT, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motion to vacate a default order and termination of their parental rights. Appellants argue that (1) the district court erred in denying their motion and in failing to make findings that address the criteria for vacating a default order; (2) the default proceedings violated due process of law; (3) the termination of parental rights lacked evidentiary support; and (4) the district court adopted respondent-county's proposed findings without an independent review. 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. |
