| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA08-0892In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian Lowell Knippel. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Brian Lowell Knippel challenges his commitment as a mentally ill and chemically dependent person. He claims that the district court abused its discretion in permitting amendment of his commitment petition to include the ground of mental illness, as well as the ground of chemical dependency, which had been alleged in the original petition. Because the issue of mental illness was tried by consent and there was no alleged or actual prejudice to appellant resulting from amendment of the petition, we affirm. = = = = A08-0009 Eddie R. Gatson, Relator, vs. Q Carriers Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LANSING, Judge By writ of certiorari, Eddie Gatson appeals an unemployment-law judge's determination that Gatson was discharged from his job as a long-distance trucker because of employment misconduct and that he is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Gatson also challenges the fairness of the hearing procedures. Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Gatson was discharged for operating a commercial vehicle in violation of company policy and federal regulations and because he received a fair hearing, we affirm. = = = = A07-2142 Joseph J. Hodge, Relator, vs. Baldwin Supply Co., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. LARKIN, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's decision that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits as of the week of his intended quit date because he did not quit his employment for good reason caused by his employer. We affirm. = = = = A07-2084 Kimberly M. Olsen, Relator, vs. Deluxe Small Business Sales Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WORKE, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by the employer, arguing that (1) the ULJ finding that she did not request additional accommodations is erroneous, and (2) she was in a hostile working environment. We affirm. = = = = A07-2060 In re the Marriage of: Kevin Brian Donovan, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Anne Donovan, n/k/a Anne Marie, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge On appeal after remand in this child-support dispute, appellant-father contends that the child-support provision in the dissolution judgment is ambiguous, that equitable defenses preclude respondent-mother from collecting any arrearages, and that the district court erred by directing that child-support arrearages be paid to respondent-mother. We conclude that the challenged provision is unambiguous and that the district court did not err by concluding that equitable defenses did not apply or by directing the arrearages to be paid to the respondent-mother. We therefore affirm in part. However, because we conclude that the calculation of the arrearages is incorrect in light of the plain language of the provision, we reverse in part and remand for recalculation of arrearages. = = = = A07-2015 Shawn C. Parker, Relator, vs. RTL Networks Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm. = = = = A07-1945 Kimberly Jestus, as Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Grant Allen Jestus, Decedent, Appellant, vs. Michael A. Jestus, Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent. COLLINS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's determination that appellant, as trustee for the next-of-kin of her deceased son, was barred from recovering under the policy issued by respondent insurance company to appellant's former spouse, decedent's father, on the premise that decedent was a "resident" of his father's household. We reverse. = = = = A07-1771 Cindy K. Adler, Appellant, vs. Rafael Espinosa, Respondent, and Rafael Espinosa, Respondent, vs. Cindy K. Adler, Appellant. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from the district court's custody and child-support determination, Cindy Adler argues that the district court abused its discretion by modifying custody of her older child, abused its discretion by determining custody of her younger child, and erred in calculating her child-support obligation. Because the district court acted within its discretion on both custody determinations and properly calculated Adler's child-support obligation, we affirm. = = = = A07-1731 Craig J. DeBerg, Appellant, vs. RSM McGladrey, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al., Respondents. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Craig J. DeBerg filed an administrative charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (the department) alleging age discrimination against his former employer, respondents RSM McGladrey, Inc., and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (collectively "McGladrey"). Without notifying the department, appellant subsequently began a civil action asserting these same claims against McGladrey and a claim of tortious interference with contract against respondent Donald Natenstedt. Upon receipt of notice of the suit from respondents, the department withdrew the administrative charges. On respondents' motion, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, concluding that appellant's civil action was time-barred and that his tortious interference with contract claim was preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (the act), Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.001-.38 (2006). Because (1) the provisions of the act toll the statute of limitations during the time an administrative charge is pending before the department, (2) appellant's failure to notify the department was cured by respondents' notice to the department before its motion to dismiss, and (3) genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the tort claim, we reverse and remand to the district court. = = = = A07-1721 Sergey Biblenko, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge By writ of certiorari, relator Sergey Biblenko challenges the decisions by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for, and has been overpaid, unemployment benefits because he was not willing to stop attending business school in order to accept an offer of suitable employment. Because there is no evidence that relator placed any limitations on his availability for employment or that he had to stop attending business school in order to accommodate suitable employment, we conclude that the ULJ erred and we reverse. = = = = A07-1638 In re the Marriage of: Sarah A. McCormick, petitioner, Respondent, vs. David L. McCormick, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dissolution judgment with respect to the valuation and division of the parties' marital homestead and the denial of conduct- or need-based attorney fees. Because we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its determination of the homestead's value or abuse its discretion in its denial of attorney fees to appellant, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the district court's decision to award 100% of the marital equity in the parties' homestead to respondent was an abuse of discretion, we reverse in part and remand on that issue. = = = = A07-1635 Martin Huss, et al., Respondents, vs. Scott County, Appellant. MUEHLBERG, Judge Scott County appeals from a final order and judgment in a mandamus proceeding, which requires appellant to approve respondents' preliminary plat. Because the writ of mandamus was improperly issued, we reverse. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
