| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1780, A07-2120William H. Root, Relator (A07-1780), Kevin J. Leino, Relator (A07-2120), vs. Key Lakes Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. COLLINS, Judge In these consolidated certiorari appeals, relators challenge the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relators received vacation pay and, therefore, are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record supports the ULJ's findings of fact and because the conclusions of law are not erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A07-1884 Richard D. Hiam, Relator, vs. Blackwater Choppers LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Relator Richard Hiam challenges an unemployment law judge's decision that he quit his employment, that the quit was without good reason caused by his employer, and that he was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record contains substantial support for the unemployment law judge's findings of fact and because the conclusions of law are not erroneous, we affirm. = = = = A07-2101 Mesenbrink Construction & Engineering, Inc., Appellant, vs. The County of Rice, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant landowner challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent county arguing that the district court erred by (1) finding that respondent complied with the notice requirements of Minn. Stat. § 375.51 (2006) when adopting a development moratorium; (2) determining that respondent's application for a preliminary development was not a request related to zoning; and (3) not ruling that respondent's preliminary development plan had been automatically approved under the 60-day rule of Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2006). We affirm. = = = = A07-2333 Thomas G. Jung, et al., Respondents, vs. Lyle L. Linnell, et al., Appellants. COLLINS, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's determination of adjacent real property boundaries. Because the district court did not clearly err in its determination of the boundary lines as described in the deed, we affirm. = = = = A07-2412 Todd S. Pickthorn, et al., Respondents, vs. James H. Schultz, et al., Appellants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendant, River Funding Corporation, Defendant. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenge the district court's grant of an easement by necessity to respondents over appellants' land. Because we conclude the record does not establish that an easement was in use at the time common ownership ended or that the easement was necessary, we reverse. = = = = A08-0062 Leslie Davis, Appellant, vs. Hennepin County, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant initiated a declaratory judgment action pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act to challenge the adequacy of an environmental impact statement. The district court ordered appellant to post a bond pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 10 (2006) and Minn. Stat. § 562.02 (2006). Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his action for his failure to post the bond. We affirm. = = = = A08-0106 Enduracon Technologies, Inc., Appellant, vs. Northshore Mining Company, et al., Respondents. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the entry of stipulated judgments on appellant's breach-of-contract claim and respondents' counterclaim for breach of the parties' contractual profit-sharing provision and misrepresentation, appellant argues that the district court erred in (1) ruling that the evergreen provision contained in the parties' agreement was unenforceable; (2) ruling that the parties had formed a partnership and then refusing to allow appellant to pursue its claim on the basis of partnership law; and (3) striking appellant's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Respondents argue that the district court erred in (1) denying their motion for summary judgment; and (2) ruling that respondents waived their right to profit sharing for 2003. Because the district court erred in finding that the evergreen provision was unenforceable, we reverse and remand for determinations on whether respondents were entitled to refuse to extend the agreement and whether respondents waived their right to profit sharing for 2003. Because the district court erred in finding that the parties formed a partnership, we reverse that ruling and vacate the stipulated judgment. = = = = A08-0108 Elizabeth R. Johnson, Appellant, vs. Debra M. Spencer, Special Administrator of Estate of Francis C. Spencer, Respondent, Northland Learning Center Independent School District #6076, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Elizabeth R. Johnson challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents Francis C. Spencer1 and Northland Learning Center (NLC), on her claims of assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (2006) (the Whistleblower Act) against Spencer, and vicarious liability against NLC. Appellant also asserts that the district court erred by denying her request to amend her complaint to include a whistleblower claim against NLC and a claim for punitive damages against both respondents. Because appellant failed to establish the existence of elements essential to her claims against Spencer and thus also failed to establish that NLC was vicariously liable for his actions, we affirm that part of the district court's order. For the same reason, we affirm the district court's order denying appellant's motion to amend the complaint to include punitive damages. But the district court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's timely motion to amend her complaint to include a whistleblower claim against NLC. We therefore reverse the court's order denying the amendment and remand this matter for further proceedings. = = = = A08-0149 Ronald Lessard, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kathleen Lessard, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Ronald Lessard challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify his spousal maintenance obligation. Appellant argues that the district court (1) made findings regarding his monthly reasonable expenses that are clearly erroneous; (2) abused its discretion in awarding ,000 per month in spousal maintenance to respondent because it leaves him with a monthly shortfall and requires him to invade his property settlement; and (3) abused its discretion in awarding ,000 in attorney fees to respondent. We affirm. = = = = A08-0443 Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Terry J. Klampe, et al., Respondents, Hruska Builders, LLC, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge In this declaratory-judgment action, appellant Hruska Builders, L.L.C. challenges the district court's determination that respondent Integrity Mutual Insurance Company owed no duty to defend or indemnify appellant. Appellant argues that the district court: (1) erred in determining that there was no "occurrence" within the terms of its comprehensive general liability insurance (CGL) policy and therefore, there was no coverage under the policy; (2) erred in deciding that even if there was an "occurrence," several of the policy exclusions apply to prevent coverage; and (3) erred in concluding that respondent was not liable for appellant's attorney fees or costs in defending this action. We affirm. = = = = A08-0676 David M. Jarvi, Respondent, vs. Viking Savings Association, F. A., Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Viking Savings Association disputes the district court's summary judgment for respondent David Jarvi, who sued on the claim that appellant's failure to pay to him the redemption proceeds of 17 Series EE U.S. Savings Bonds was a breach of contract. Appellant contends that the judgment rests on a misconstruction of federal regulations governing the distribution of bond redemption proceeds. Because the district court accurately followed regulatory language, we affirm. = = = = A08-0446 Citibank South Dakota, NA, Respondent, vs. Laurence R. Otto, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal from summary judgment in favor of respondent to recover money owed by appellant under the "account-stated" theory, appellant argues that (1) genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; (2) respondent's attorney improperly acted as a witness and respondent failed to produce a witness to testify as to the account or the amount owed; and (3) the affidavit of Shauna Houghton was improperly admitted into evidence. We affirm. == = = = A08-1044 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. F., Parent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant mother A.F. challenges the district court's denial of her motion to vacate her voluntary termination of parental rights (TPR). Appellant argues that the district court erred when it determined that the TPR was not void due to undue influence. We affirm. = = = = A08-1106 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Richard Patrick Comeau. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges his indeterminate civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting disclosures he made during mandatory sex-offender treatment. He also argues that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to support its findings that he engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct and a habitual course of sexual misconduct. Finally, appellant argues that the district court erred in finding that there was no less-restrictive treatment option available. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting disclosures made by appellant during sex-offender treatment, because clear and convincing evidence supports appellant's commitment as an SDP and an SPP, and because appellant has not shown that there is a less-restrictive treatment option available, 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 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. |
