| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1664In the Matter of the Administrative Penalty Order Issued to Causeway on Gull Association, Inc. STONEBURNER, Judge In this certiorari review, relator, a nonprofit corporation created to manage, maintain, and operate a timeshare development, challenges respondent Minnesota Department of Health’s grant of summary disposition holding that relator is required to obtain a lodging license under Minn. Stat. § 157.15, subd. 1 (2006). Because there are no disputed material facts and there was no error in application of the law, we affirm. = = = = A07-1915 Timothy P. Rajkowski, Appellant, vs. Melissa Christensen, et al., Respondents, Central Minnesota Federal Credit Union, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s ruling that he was not entitled to a prescriptive easement over land adjacent to his. Because the district court’s decision was substantially supported by the evidence and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant the equitable remedy of prescriptive easement, we affirm. = = = = A07-1941 Jean M. Studniski, Relator, vs. Baja St. Cloud LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Relator brings a certiorari appeal from the determination of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Because we conclude that relator quit for good reason caused by her employer, we reverse. = = = = A07-2001 Denise Weidner, o/b/o Autumn Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Jeffrey Dean Hurt, o/b/o Jordan Dean Hurt, Respondent. LARKIN, Judge Pro-se appellant-mother Denise Weidner (mother) and Eric Hanson (father) have a daughter, born August 1, 1998, who is in mother’s physical custody. Father is married to Jennifer Hanson (wife) who has a son, born September 29, 1992, from her prior relationship with Jeffrey Hurt. Hurt has physical custody of son. Mother appeals the dismissal of a harassment restraining order (HRO) proceeding that mother filed on behalf of daughter, against Hurt on behalf of son. Mother’s request for an HRO was based on allegations that son abused daughter. Hurt was served notice of the HRO proceeding, but did not appear or otherwise represent son. Mother did not name wife in the HRO petition. The district court dismissed the HRO proceeding after the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 14, 2007, pursuant to wife’s request. Respondent did not file a brief in this appeal. This court issued an order under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03, stating that the case would be decided by the panel on the merits. We affirm. = = = = A07-2133 In re the Marriage of: Luanne Sylvia Baumgartner, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Larry Charles Baumgartner, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, appellant Luanne Sylvia Baumgartner argues that the district court abused its discretion in declining to award her spousal maintenance and in awarding respondent Larry Charles Baumgartner a disproportionate share of the marital estate and that it erred in valuing marital assets and in failing to rule on her motion to impose sanctions for discovery violations. Because we see an abuse of discretion in the denial of spousal maintenance, we reverse it and remand for further findings; because we see no abuse of discretion in the division of property and no error in the valuation of marital assets or in the failure to rule on the motion for sanctions, we affirm those determinations. = = = = A07-2168 M & I Marshall Ilsley Bank, Appellant, vs. Michael V. DuPont, et al., Defendants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Respondent, Clarice Von Behren, Respondent, and In the Matter of the Petitioner, Clarice K. Von Behren. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in this lien dispute, appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that the mortgage was satisfied in November 1997, and, therefore, appellant was precluded from foreclosing on the mortgage. Appellant also contends that the district court erred in determining that appellant was barred from asserting an interest in the encumbered property because respondent Clarice Von Behren was not a good faith purchaser of the property. Because the mortgage was satisfied in November 1997 and no longer enforceable after that date, we affirm. = = = = A08-0405 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. A. B. and R. A., Parents PETERSON, Judge Appellant mother argues that because (1) the record lacks evidence of reasonable efforts by respondent county to reunite her with the child, (2) respondent county was not joined as a party at the beginning of the termination proceeding, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s termination order, the district court erred in terminating her parental rights. We affirm. = = = = A07-1193 Scott E. Jones, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing his claim as barred by the Feres doctrine of intramilitary immunity. Because the district court correctly determined that review of appellant’s military status was barred by the Feres doctrine, we affirm in part. But because the district court erred in finding this doctrine applicable to appellant’s administrative claims, we reverse in part and remand. = = = = A07-1676 Harvey Lawhorn, Appellant, LeVares Pearson, Plaintiff, vs. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Corrections, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge In this race-discrimination case, appellant challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to respondent. Appellant argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether respondent’s reason for issuing him an oral reprimand was pretextual. Because we agree that a genuine issue of material fact exists, we reverse and remand for further proceedings 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. |
