| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-2234City of Baxter, Minnesota, Respondent, vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council No. 65, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a judgment vacating an arbitration award, appellant union argues that the district court erred when it ruled that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by (1) ruling that respondent city violated a clause in a collective-bargaining agreement that prohibits respondent from contracting out bargaining-unit work; and (2) fashioning a remedy for the violation. We affirm in part and reverse in part. = = = = A07-2238 Steven M. Maus, Respondent, vs. George J. Galic, Appellant, vs. William Lewis, nominal defendant, Respondent. LANSING, Judge This dispute between the two majority partners in a limited-liability partnership arises out of a court-supervised winding-up of the partnership business. On appeal from judgment following remand, George Galic disputes the district court's division of escrowed sale proceeds and its refusal to release trust-account funds maintained, according to stipulation, in lieu of a supersedeas bond. By notice of review, Steven Maus disputes the district court's division of profits from five separate sources, the allocation of penalty and interest on 1999 taxes, the allocation of interest on a capital account, and an order for attorneys' fees. Because the district court properly applied the law, relied on facts supported by the record, and acted within its equitable powers in supervising the winding-up of the partnership business, we affirm. = = = = A07-2280 Palmer Bus Service of St. Peter, Minnesota, Inc., Appellant, vs. Independent School District No. 508, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant brings this interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of its motion for a temporary injunction. Because appellant no longer desires a temporary injunction, we dismiss this appeal as moot. = = = = A07-2286 Stephanie A. Boldt, Respondent, vs. Margaret Burns, Appellant, Professional Administration Corporation, et al., nominal defendants, Appellants, and Stephanie A. Boldt, individually and on behalf of Professional Administration Corporation and Professional Administration, LLC, Respondent, vs. Mahoney & Hagberg, a Professional Association, n/k/a Mahoney & Emerson, a Professional Association, et al., Appellants. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenge a temporary restraining order in favor of respondent, arguing that (1) the temporary restraining order violates their right to receive advice from their attorney; (2) the order violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and an automatic stay from a bankruptcy proceeding; and (3) the district court improperly applied the Dahlberg factors. Appellants also moved to strike most of respondent's statement of facts in her brief on the ground that it lacks supporting citations to the record. We affirm; motion denied. = = = = A07-2316 City of Danube, Appellant, vs. Kelly Sean Mahoney, et al., Respondents, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Defendant, Tristam O. Hage, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges (1) the district court's decision denying its request for an injunction requiring respondents to bring their garage into compliance with local building ordinances, and (2) the district court's finding that respondents' property line had not been affirmatively established. Because the district court abused its discretion in declining to issue the injunction, and because the finding that respondents' property line had not been affirmatively established is clearly erroneous, we reverse and remand. = = = = A07-2349 Aurelia Tessmer, Relator, vs. City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge Relator argues that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and yet still requests that this court reverse the order of the Saint Paul City Council to demolish her property as being arbitrary and capricious. Because this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and because the order to demolish was not arbitrary and capricious, we affirm. = = = = A07-2421 In re the Marriage of: Deborah Marie Saby, petitioner, Respondent, vs. William James Saby, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order finding him in contempt of court for failing to comply with certain obligations from a dissolution judgment on the principal ground that the district court lacked authority to order what he claims amounts to a modification of the parties' property division. Because we conclude that the district court exceeded its authority, and because contempt is an inappropriate remedy for a party's failure to satisfy a lien under a judgment, we reverse and remand. = = = = A07-2432 In re the Marriage of: Giuseppina Biocca, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Vincenzo Cistera, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Giuseppina (Josephine) Biocca appeals from the district court's judgment and decree dissolving her marriage with Vincenzo Cistera. She challenges the district court's decision to award temporary rather than permanent spousal maintenance, its failure to require that Cistera secure the award with life insurance, and its calculation of the award. Because the district court's treatment of spousal maintenance does not constitute an abuse of discretion, we affirm. = = = = A08-0018 Rick T. Carlson, Relator, vs. Upsala Public Schools, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Pro se relator Rick T. Carlson challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 7(a) (Supp. 2007), because he was a school employee whose subsequent employment was not substantially less favorable than the employment of the prior academic term. We affirm. = = = = A08-0025 Christopher Lee Manska, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections, et al., Respondents. JOHNSON, Judge The commissioner of corrections extended Christopher Lee Manska's incarceration by 30 days because Manska refused to participate in a prison-based chemical-dependency-treatment program. The district court denied Manska's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the commissioner acted within her statutory authority, that Manska's petition does not state a claim of disability discrimination, and that Manska was not denied due process of law. Therefore, we affirm. = = = = A08-0041 Brad P. Engen, Relator, vs. Clements Chevrolet-Cadillac Co., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge Relator was terminated by his employer for crashing a company-owned car. Relator subsequently filed for unemployment benefits but a decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determined that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he had been fired for employment misconduct. After a request for reconsideration, the ULJ affirmed the decision. Relator appeals, arguing that (1) he did not commit employment misconduct; (2) the single-incident exception applies; and (3) the ULJ erroneously credited unreliable witness testimony. We affirm. = = = = A08-0076 Vicki F. Zaudtke, Relator, vs. Vision Financial & Home Mortgage Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determinations that she quit her job without good reason caused by her employer and that she did not have good cause for missing her evidentiary hearing. We affirm = = = = A08-0138 In re the Marriage of: Renee Ann Glenn, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Michael John Glenn, Appellant. LARKIN, Judge On appeal in this marital-dissolution matter, appellant-father argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to admit expert testimony and related documents; (2) failing to value the parties' business (marital property); (3) overstating father's income for child-support purposes; (4) awarding permanent maintenance to respondent-mother; (5) awarding mother an inequitably large share of the marital assets; and (6) awarding mother need-based attorney fees. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion as to the admissibility of expert testimony and documents, the failure to value the parties' business, the permanent spousal-maintenance award, the marital-property division, and the attorney-fee award, we affirm the district court's determinations. But because the district court abused its discretion by determining appellant-father's child-support obligation without making a specific finding regarding his net income as defined by statute, we reverse the district court's child-support determination and remand for the specific calculations required by statute. = = = = A08-0152 North Star Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Dean Doree, Defendant, Richard Terhaar, as Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Larry Drewes, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant trustee for decedent's estate challenges the district court's summary judgment determination that the motor-vehicle exclusion in respondent insurer's homeowner policy precluded coverage for a claim arising out of a highway accident. We affirm. = = = = A08-0276 A08-0461 Nancy C. Lazaryan, Appellant, William M. Kayser, Plaintiff, vs. Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk for the City of Maplewood, in her personal and professional capacity, et al., Defendants (A08-276), Respondents (A08-461), H. Allan Kantrud, interim attorney for the City of Maplewood, in his personal and professional capacity, Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge Appellant argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction in this case. Because the district court had both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm. = = = = A08-0381 Kittson County, Respondent, vs. River Ridge Dairy, LLP, Respondent, Border State Bank, Appellant. WORKE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent, arguing that the district court erred in finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that appellant failed to satisfy the terms of a conditional guaranty as a matter of law. We affirm. = = = = A08-1020 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: V.J. and S.R., Parents. BJORKMAN, Judge In this appeal from the termination of his parental rights to three children, appellant contests the district court's findings that (1) he is palpably unfit to parent these children, (2) reasonable efforts have failed to correct the conditions leading to the children's out-of-home placement, and (3) it is in the children's best interests that his parental rights be terminated. Because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's findings, we affirm. = = = = A08-1094 Dezeray Marie Roblero-Barrios f/k/a Wesley Ross Mullins, Appellant, vs. Cal R. Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges an order of a judicial appeal panel denying his petition for provisional discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous person. We affirm. = = = = A08-0716 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.J.W. and D.L.P., Parents. STAUBER, Judge On appeal from a CHIPS adjudication, appellant-parents argue that (1) the district court's findings that the minor child was physically abused are not supported by clear and convincing evidence and (2) the district court's findings do not sufficiently address the statutory criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. § 260C.201, subd. 2 (2006). Because there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that the minor child was physically abused, we affirm the CHIPS adjudication. But because the district court's findings do not sufficiently address the statutory criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. § 260C.201, subd. 2, we remand the matter for the necessary findings. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
