| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1238Scott D. Augustine, M.D., Respondent, v. Arizant, Inc., et al., Appellants. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge On remand from the supreme court after its reversal of our decision on indemnification, we now address several issues that we had found unnecessary to reach in our original opinion. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion or err as a matter of law in its evidentiary rulings, its jury instructions on the legal definition of good faith, or its award of attorney fees to respondent Scott D. Augustine, M.D. under Minn. Stat. § 302A.467 (2006), we affirm as to those issues. We remand to the district court for a new trial as provided in Augustine I. = = = = A07-2388 In the Matter of the Claim for Benefits by Gary L. Minnie. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Gary L. Minnie (relator) challenges the Minnesota Public Safety Officers Benefit Eligibility Panel's (panel) denial of his application for continuing health-care benefits under the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, subd. 1 (2006). Relator contends that (1) the panel erred in finding that relator's occupational duties did not put him at risk for the type of injuries he sustained and (2) the panel's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and without any objectivity. We reverse and remand. = = = = A07-2462 Brown-Wilbert, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. Copeland Buhl & Company, P.L.L.P., et al., Respondents. STAUBER, Judge On appeal from dismissal after remand of appellants' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and restitution, appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims because expert testimony is not required to present a prima facie case for breach of contract or for breach of fiduciary duty, and that if either claim is reinstated, the restitution claim must also be reinstated. Appellants also contend that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider appellants' motion to amend their complaint. We affirm. = = = = A08-0169 Risk & Associates, Inc., Respondent, vs. Kim F. Larson, Appellant, James Gaasedelen, Respondent, Larson-Gaasedelen Joint Venture, Defendant. HUDSON, Judge Appellant Kim F. Larson challenges awards of summary judgment in favor of respondent Risk & Associates, Inc. and respondent James Gaasedelen. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent Risk & Associates found a "ready, willing, and able" buyer, and because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gaasedelen effectively tendered defense of the lawsuit, we reverse and remand. = = = = A08-0195 Stephen J. Smith, Respondent, vs. City of Princeton, Relator, Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. COLLINS, Judge Relator City of Princeton challenges the grant of summary disposition to respondent-employee Stephen Smith, arguing that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar Smith's second termination. Because res judicata applies, we affirm. = = = = In re the Marriage of: Charlotte Kay Sailors, petitioner, Respondent, vs. James Thomas Sailors, Appellant. BJORKMAN, Judge In this post-remand appeal, pro se appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation. We affirm. = = = = A08-0204 City of Bloomington, Minnesota, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Orest Associates, et al., Defendants, BP Products North America, Inc., Respondent, William J. Townsend, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge Appellant William Townsend challenges the district court's order precluding him from seeking loss-of-going-concern value in eminent-domain proceedings arising from the condemnation of property leased to him in connection with a gasoline franchise. Because we conclude that appellant does not have a right to loss-of-going-concern value that survives the termination of his interest in the condemned property, we affirm. = = = = A08-0265 Steven M. Hahn, Appellant, vs. Dwayne Meier, Respondent, Carol J. Hahn, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge In this property dispute between a mother and her son, appellant Steven M. Hahn argues that: (1) the district court's findings supporting its award of damages are clearly erroneous; (2) the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to respondent Carol J. Hahn; (3) the district court erred in failing to dismiss respondent Hahn's claims because her claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and by applicable statutes of limitation; (4) the district court exhibited improper bias against appellant requiring a new trial; and (5) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to respondent Dwayne Meier. We affirm. = = = = A08-0196 In re the Marriage of: Charlotte Kay Sailors, petitioner, Respondent, vs. James Thomas Sailors, Appellant. BJORKMAN, Judge In this post-remand appeal, pro se appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation. We affirm. = = = = A08-0640 Michael P. Jeche, Appellant, vs. Jacob John Knutson, Respondent, Kandyce Kristen Keeler, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellant Michael Jeche argues that it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of respondent Kandyce Keeler. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial, we affirm. = = = = A08-0696 Ernest Tuff, individually and d/b/a Ernie Tuff Museum, Appellant, vs. Winona County, Respondent. LARKIN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent-county. The district court held that (1) appellant's due process challenge was barred by Minn. Stat. § 599.13 (2006), (2) appellant's takings claims were barred by the six-year limitations period, and (3) appellant did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to appellant's discriminatory-enforcement claim. Because the district court properly applied the law, we affirm. = = = = A08-0983 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. W., Parent TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Phillip Steen, guardian ad litem for A.H., 14, and M.W., 12, challenges the district court orders granting termination of the parental rights of mother, A.W., and denying A.H. and M.W.'s new-trial motion. Appellant claims that long-term foster care, as opposed to termination of parental rights, is in A.H. and M.W.'s best interests. Because respondent Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department (the department) made "reasonable efforts" to finalize a placement plan for A.H. and M.W., and substantial, clear-and-convincing evidence supports the district court's conclusion that termination of parental rights is in A.H. and M.W.'s best interest, 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. |
