| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSIn the Matter of the Welfare of theChildren of: M.S., C.M., and D.C., Parents LANSING, Judge JES appeals from an order terminating her mother's parental rights. She raises three grounds for appeal. First, JES argues that the district court failed to give her preference adequate weight when evaluating whether termination was in her best interests. Second, JES argues that the district court retroactively applied the amended long-term foster-care (LTFC) statute. Third, JES argues that the 2005 amendments to the LTFC statute violate separation-of-powers principles by infringing on the district court's ability to act in the best interests of a child. Because the findings establish that the district court evaluated whether the termination is in JES's best interests and applied the correct law, we affirm. = = = = A05-1082 In re: Estate of Aural Alma Greenstreet, Decedent LANSING, Judge Richard Greenstreet appeals the district court's decisions denying his claims against the estate of his mother, Aural Greenstreet. First, he appeals the district court's order granting a family allowance but finding that the allowance has been fully satisfied by benefits received following his mother's death. Second, he appeals the district court's directed verdict dismissing his claims for compensation from the estate for his alleged services to his mother. He also appeals the district court's orders denying his posttrial motions following each decision. Because the evidence supports the district court's conclusions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Greenstreet's motions for amended findings or for a new trial on either his family-allowance or compensation-for-services claims, we affirm. = = = = A05-2323 Mark V. Scheid, Relator, vs. McPhillips Trucking, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge Relator Mark V. Scheid challenges his disqualification from unemployment benefits, arguing that he quit his job for good reason caused by his employer, respondent McPhillips Trucking, Inc. Because the evidence supports the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ), who concluded that the heated confrontation between relator and his employer was momentary and not the kind of situation that would cause an average, reasonable employee to quit and become unemployed, we affirm. = = = = A06-506 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Todd Anthony Fernandes WORKE, Judge On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person, under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.02, subd. 18c (2004), appellant argues that the commitment order must be reversed because (1) the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he meets the criteria for commitment as a sexually dangerous person; and (2) his commitment violates his double-jeopardy, due-process, and equal-protection rights. We affirm. = = = = A06-191 In the Matter of the Eligibility of Adam Strege, Claimant for Crime Victims Reparations WORKE, Judge On appeal from the denial of crime-victim reparations for failing to cooperate with law-enforcement authorities, relator argues that the Crime Victims Reparations Board should not have denied his claim because he has a mental disability that prevented him from cooperating fully with law enforcement. Because the board's decision is supported by the record, we affirm. Further, respondent's motion to strike that portion of relator's brief that contains information outside the record is granted. = = = = A06-364 In re the Marriage of: Joyce Kathleen Grover, petitioner Appellant, vs. David Allen Grover, Jr., Respondent. This appeal arises from a custody dispute in a marriage dissolution. The district court, after considering the best interests of the parties' child, granted sole physical custody to respondent-father David Grover. Appellant-mother Joyce Grover argues that the record does not support several of the district court's findings and that the district court's determination is based on improper considerations and bias. Because the district court's findings have record support and because we find no error or bias, we affirm. = = = = A06-76, A06-77 Brooks D. Fisher, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Department of Corrections, et al., Appellants, Dr. Virginia Mandac, et al., Defendants. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Respondent Brooks Fisher was repeatedly assaulted while he was incarcerated between 1998 and 2003. He brought claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (2000), violations of the Minnesota Constitution, and negligence against appellants State of Minnesota Department of Corrections and various department employees. Arguing that they are immune from such claims, appellants moved for summary judgment. Their motion was denied. Because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether appellants acted with malice and are therefore not entitled to official immunity on the negligence claim arising out of the May 26, 2002, assault, we affirm the denial of summary judgment on that claim and remand. Because appellants do not argue that official immunity applies to the negligence claim arising out of the October 22, 2003, assaults, we also affirm the denial of summary judgment on that claim and remand. Because we conclude that appellants are immune from respondent's section 1983 claims and his other negligence claims, we reverse the denial of summary judgment on those claims. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
