| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-2319In re the Marriage of: Maria del Pilar Hartshorn, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Evan Lawrence Hartshorn, Appellant. COLLINS, Judge Evan Hartshorn, appealing pro se, (1) contends that the district court abused its discretion in the conduct of the hearings and (2) challenges the district court's findings and conclusions. Seeing no abuse of discretion or error on the part of the district court and because the findings and conclusions are supported by the record, we affirm. = = = = A08-0148 Jeffrey Noack, et al., Appellants, vs. Colson Construction, Inc., et al., defendants and third party plaintiffs, Respondents, vs. Scherer Bros. Lumber Co., third party defendant, Respondent, Mark Entsminger d/b/a Mark's Stucco, third party defendant, Respondent, Trevor Foss d/b/a Trevor Foss Roofing, third party defendant, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from the district court's final order denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial, appellants argue that (1) there is no evidence in the record to support the jury's award; (2) the district court erred by excluding evidence of respondents' construction practices and similar defects found in other homes built by respondents; (3) the district court erred in instructing the jury; and (4) the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Colson Custom Homes on the matter of successor liability. On notice of review, respondent Colson Construction alleges error in the district court's failure to reduce appellants' award by the percentage of negligence attributed to appellants by the jury. Also on notice of review, respondent Trevor Foss claims that the district court erred by denying him costs and disbursements against appellants. We reverse and remand to the district court in regard to Foss's claim for costs and disbursements. In all other respects, we affirm. = = = = A08-0173 Malisa M. Brunotte, Relator, vs. City of St. Paul Office Safety & Inspections, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Relator challenges the designation of her dogs as "dangerous animals" under the St. Paul Legislative Code, arguing that (1) she was deprived of her due process rights, (2) the hearing officer's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious, and (3) the definition of "dangerous animal" in the St. Paul Legislative Code is preempted by state law. We affirm. = = = = A08-0510 American Employers Insurance Company, et al., Respondents, vs. Robinson Outdoors, Inc., f/k/a Robinson Laboratories, Inc., Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges decisions of an arbitration panel as having been beyond the panel's authority and the district court's confirmation of the award in arbitration. Because the arbitration panel properly exercised the authority conferred by the parties and because the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award, we affirm. = = == A08-0690 Gage Cates, a minor, by his mother and natural guardian, Jackie Winter, Appellant, vs. North Star Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. LARKIN, Judge In this appeal from an award of summary judgment in favor of respondent, appellant claims that the district court erred by concluding that the insured's adult child was not a resident of the insured's household, and therefore not an insured under the policy issued by respondent. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact and because the district court properly applied the law, we affirm. = = = = A08-0726 In re the Marriage of: Heather Dawn Woods, n/k/a Heather Dawn Andrews, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Christian Michael Woods, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge On appeal in this child-support-modification dispute, appellant-mother argues that the district court erred by (1) modifying respondent-father's support obligation when his motion was served within the moratorium period of Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(j) (Supp. 2007); (2) modifying the parties' stipulated health-insurance provision without adequate findings of fact; and (3) declining to award mother conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm. = = = = A08-1432 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. L. and E. L., Parents. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellants challenge termination of their parental rights to three children, arguing that because the district court failed to make a finding that they have the ability to comply with the duties imposed on them by the parent and child relationship, the court erred in finding that their failure to comply with those duties is a legal basis for terminating parental rights. Appellants also argue that the district court erred in finding them to be palpably unfit because the district court's findings of fact indicated that they do not lack the ability to be parents but only that they have engaged in poor decision-making that results from ongoing mental-health issues. 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. |
