| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA08-1817In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B.T.N. and A.V.D., Parents. BJORKMAN, Judge Appellants jointly appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son, arguing that the district court's findings are insufficient and unsupported by the record. Because the findings are insufficient and the record does not support findings necessary for termination, we reverse. = = = = A08-0854 Creekridge Capital, LLC, Appellant, vs. Eric Diedrich, et al., Respondents. KLAPHAKE, Judge In this contract dispute, appellant Creekridge Capital, LLC challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents Eric Diedrich and Patrick von Tscharner, former employees of appellant, in its actions for recovery of commission draws paid to respondents in excess of their earned commissions. Because the provisions in the agreements at issue are ambiguous, the district court erroneously granted summary judgment, and we therefore reverse and remand. = = = = A08-0839 Michael Peter Henderson, Appellant, vs. Minnesota Correctional Facility - Faribault, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit as moot, its failure to rule on pending motions, and its refusal to award costs. Because (1) appellant's cause of action is moot; (2) appellant has not established that he is the "prevailing party" for the purposes of awarding costs; and (3) when dismissing a case as moot, courts may disregard claims related to costs, we affirm. = = = = A08-0761 Richard Allen Patterson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges his implied-consent license revocation, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery of the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN machine used to measure his alcohol concentration. Because respondent presented an affidavit stating that it does not possess the source code, there is nothing in the record to rebut this evidence, and appellant concedes that it cannot show that the item requested is in respondent's "possession, custody or control," we affirm. = = = = A08-0647 Michael O'Byrne d/b/a Michael O'Byrne Construction, Respondent, vs. Lumber One, Avon, Inc., Appellant. SCHELLHAS, Judge After remand, appellant challenges the district court's award of damages as unsupported by probative evidence and subject to mathematical error. Because we conclude that the district court's calculation of damages is supported by probative evidence and contains no mathematical error, we affirm. = = = = A08-0282 Ameriquest Mortgage Company, a Delaware corporation, Respondent, vs. Margaret J. Hanson, et al., Appellants. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges a district court order reinstating and reforming a previously-satisfied mortgage, arguing that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that there was a mutual mistake. Because appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous and because there is substantial evidence to support the district court's findings, we affirm. = = = = A08-0244 A08-0554 Steven E. Boynton, Respondent (A08-0244), Jerold O. Nelson, Respondent (A08-0554), vs. Douglas J. Nill, et al., Appellants (A08-0244), Douglas J. Nill, Appellant (A08-0554). LARKIN, Judge Appellants assert that Hennepin County District Court erred by determining that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over respondents' lawsuits. In the underlying lawsuits, respondents claim that appellants owe respondents a share of attorney fees awarded to appellants in a Norman County class-action lawsuit. Appellants claim that Norman County District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over respondents' claims. Because Hennepin County District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over respondents' claims, we affirm. = = = = A08-0553 Terrance K. Swanson, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the dismissal by summary judgment of his whistleblower claims against respondent State of Minnesota. Because the plain language of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (2006), includes "location" in the definition of an adverse employment action and because we conclude that there are material questions of fact regarding causal connection, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
