| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSIn re the Marriage of:Leslie L. Kozel, n/k/a Leslie Kurzontkowski, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kevin P. Kozel, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On appeal to this court following remand and the district court's subsequent affirmation of its previous order imputing income for the purpose of determining appellant-mother's child support obligation, appellant argues: (1) the district court did not properly execute this court's remand order to impute income based on the factors enumerated in Minn. Stat. ? 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2002); (2) the district court improperly declined to reopen the record on remand to receive new evidence regarding appellant's earning capacity, and as a result, overstated her earning capacity; (3) the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to modify her existing support obligation. We affirm on all issues. = = = = A05-2154 Nicholas D. Juhl, Relator, vs. Northwest Manufacturing, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. RANDALL, Judge On certiorari appeal from the decision by the ULJ affirming his earlier decision that relator was discharged for misconduct after he failed to report for work on July 21, 2005, due to personal reasons and without adequate notice, relator argues that his absence from work did not constitute employment misconduct because the absence did not cause a hardship on the employer and because there was some confusion as to whether relator had been approved to take the day off. We affirm. = = = = A05-2337 A05-2556 Signature Bank, Appellant, vs. Marshall Bank, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellant bank challenges summary judgment on its claims based on a loan-participation agreement for which the underlying loan went into default, arguing that (a) it pleaded fraud with sufficient particularity under Minn. R. Civ. P. 9.02; (b) respondent bank owed appellant a duty of care that it breached, making respondent liable for negligent misrepresentation; (c) the loan-participation agreement was a security under Minn. Stat. ? 80A.14, subd. 18(a) (2004), and misrepresentations respondent made regarding the participation agreement violated Minn. Stat. ? 80A.01 (2004); (d) respondent breached the loan-participation agreement because the loan guarantees were forged; and (e) attorney fees should not have been awarded under the loan-participation agreement. We affirm. = = = = A05-1843 Dianna S. Bach, as Legal Guardian of the Person of Brett L. Bach, et al., Appellants, vs. Scott Gehl, Respondent, Case Corporation, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge In this tort action, appellants challenge the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their claims after a jury trial. Appellants argue that several of the district court's evidentiary rulings had a prejudicial effect on the jury verdict and warrant a new trial. We affirm. = = = = A06-128 Phyllis L. Lawrence, as Trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Caleb Keown Lawrence, decedent, Appellant, vs. Silver Lake Clinic, P.A., et al., Respondents. SHUMAKER, Judge In this medical-negligence action, the district court determined that another physician's negligent acts or omissions superseded the omissions of the respondents and granted summary judgment in respondents' favor. Appellant contends that the court improperly decided disputed material facts. Because we find that there exist genuine issues of material fact for trial, we reverse and remand. = = = = A05-2466 David A. Sweeter, judgment creditor, Respondent, vs. Power Industries, Inc., et al., Judgment Debtors, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Garnishee, and Paradigm Industries, Inc., claimant, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the district court's order in a garnishment proceeding, appellant argues that the district court (1) exceeded its authority by addressing the issue of appellant's liability to respondent, and (2) erred in its decision that respondent was entitled, under the theory of successor liability, to garnished funds owed to appellant. 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 Lawyer 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. |
