| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSAshley D. Rossman,Relator, vs. City of St. Paul Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, Respondent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Relator Ashley Rossman challenges by writ of certiorari the determination by the St. Paul Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) that her dog, Brandy Wine, is a potentially dangerous animal. Relator argues that (1) there is insufficient evidence that Brandy Wine bit her neighbor without provocation; and (2) the LIEP hearing was unfair because the hearing officer demonstrated personal bias against large dogs. We affirm. = = = = A05-2475 In re the Marriage of: Karen J. Jacobson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Robert Curtis Jacobson, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Robert Curtis Jacobson challenges the district court's order refusing to award him a nonmarital interest in the homestead property that appellant owned jointly with respondent Karen J. Jacobson. Appellant also asserts that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to make a cash property-equalization payment before the emancipation of the parties' youngest child. Because appellant has not offered sufficient credible evidence to overcome the presumption that property acquired during the marriage is marital, or to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the timing of the equalization payment, we affirm. = = = = A06-553 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.L.C. and A.C., Jr., Parents PETERSON, Judge Appellant-parents appeal district court orders terminating their parental rights, denying a motion to transfer custody to a relative, and denying a motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court (1) failed to independently review the evidence and improperly adopted the county's proposed findings, which are not supported by the record; (2) improperly refused to transfer legal custody of the child where the county failed to adequately pursue a relative placement; (3) improperly terminated parental rights based solely on the parents' incarceration; (4) erred in determining that the evidence supported termination of parental rights and that termination is in the child's best interests; and (5) denied mother due process by (a) accepting an invalid waiver of her right to testify; and (b) denying her a new trial. We affirm. = = = = A06-436 A06-654 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.D.C. and J.L.W., Parents. HUDSON, Judge In this consolidated appeal from the district court's termination of parental rights, appellant-mother argues that (1) the district court's finding that she is palpably unfit to parent is clearly erroneous; (2) the district court's finding that Isanti County made reasonable efforts at reunification is clearly erroneous; (3) the district court erred by concluding that Isanti County's failure to actively pursue relative placement was not fatal to the petition to terminate parental rights; and (4) the district court's conclusion that termination was in the best interests of the child is erroneous. Appellant-father argues that (1) the district court's finding that Isanti County provided reasonable efforts at reunification is erroneous; (2) the district court failed to make sufficient findings of fact regarding the best interests of the child; (3) Isanti County failed to pursue a relative placement for the child; and (4) Isanti County did not satisfy the requirements of the Indian Family Preservation Act and the Indian Child Welfare Act. We affirm. = = = = A05-2313 Elva E. Baumgartner, Relator, vs. Independent School District #115, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by the employer. We affirm. = = = = A06-10 In re the Marriage of: Robyn Bartz Woolley, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Robert James Woolley, Appellant. DIETZEN, Judge In this dissolution proceeding, appellant husband challenges the district court order of default and resulting judgment and decree, arguing that the district court erred (1) in failing to hear his motion for a temporary order regarding attorney fees, (2) by finding him in default, and (3) by not equitably dividing the property. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A06-585 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of J.P. and M.G., Parents ROSS, Judge M.G., the father of 11-year-old T.P., appeals from the district court's order permanently transferring the physical and legal custody of T.P. to J.P., the child's mother, for M.G.'s failure to comply with his case plan after T.P. was adjudicated a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS). M.G. argues that the evidence does not support the district court's factual findings and that those findings do not satisfy the statutory requirements authorizing the transfer of legal custody. Because the district court erred by focusing on M.G.'s denial of the allegation that gave rise to the CHIPS petition as clear and convincing evidence that he failed to substantially comply with his case plan and failed to use the services offered to correct the condition that led to T.P.'s out-of-home placement, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. = = = = A05-2434 Rodney Wayne Kesanen, Respondent, vs. D & H Construction of Eveleth, Inc., et al., Defendants, East Range Builders & Supply, Inc., et al., Appellants. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellants, East Range Builders and Supply, Inc., and its president, David Strope, dispute the factual bases for the jury's determination that they are liable for defamation and tortious interference with contract. Because the record supports the jury's findings, we affirm. We also find no merit in the contentions that the statements were non-actionable opinions, that the individual appellant was not personally liable because he was speaking only as a corporate officer, or that appellants should enjoy absolute immunity based on national security grounds. = = = = A06-210 In re the Marriage of: Susan M. Bocklund, n/k/a Susan M. Balster, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Duane R. Bocklund, Respondent. HUSPENI, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's refusal to award her permanent spousal maintenance and attorney fees. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make either award, 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. |
