Summaries of the Unpublished Decisions in the Minnesota Court of Appeals for November 17, 2009
A08-1853
Jerrod M. Smith, Appellant, Jerrod M. Smith & Associates, Plaintiff, vs. James Lindell, et al.,
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, arguing that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning his claims of breach of contract, tortious interference of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. We affirm.
A09-20
Clinton Bethune, Jr., Relator, vs. Target Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relator appeals by writ of certiorari following a decision by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator argues that the decision was not supported by credibility findings and that he had good reason caused by his employer to quit. We affirm.
A09-24
C. J. Schaber d/b/a Lefty Schaber Agency, Respondent, vs. Dan Olson Agency, Inc., Defendant, Daniel Olson, et al., Appellants.
STAUBER, Judge
On appeal from a judgment following a jury verdict in a breach-of-contract action, appellants argue that the district court erred in (1) denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law and (2) denying their motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. We affirm.
A09-86
In re the Marriage of William J. Peppler, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kate J. Peppler, Respondent.
SHUMAKER, Judge
In this marital-dissolution appeal, appellant-husband argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay respondent-wife spousal maintenance of $3,000 each month for three years and that the district court erred by finding that all of the parties’ funds in a certain account were marital. Because husband has not shown that the district court abused its discretion or misapplied the law, we affirm.
A09-334
John Mesenbrink, et al., Respondents, vs. Riverwood ENT, LLC, et al., Appellants, Riverwood ENT, LLC, third party plaintiff, Appellant, vs. Cheryl M. Wachal Trnka, third party defendant, Respondent, and Premier Development, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. JEM Mortgage Holdings, LLC, Respondent.
STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellants challenge summary judgment dismissing counterclaims against respondents for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and conversion, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that although appellants produced sufficient evidence of breach of fiduciary duty to withstand summary judgment, they failed to produce sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment that the alleged breach of fiduciary duty caused the damages. Because appellants failed to produce any evidence that their claimed damages were caused by the alleged breach of fiduciary duty, we affirm.
A09-482
Michael Paul, Relator, vs. Geco Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
HALBROOKS, Judge
Pro se relator Michael Paul challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) affirming an earlier decision that relator failed to participate in his appeal from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determination that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because we conclude that the ULJ did not abuse her discretion in finding that relator failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to participate, we affirm.
A09-885
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. A. and T. C., Parents.
JOHNSON, Judge
The Dakota County District Court transferred permanent legal and physical custody of two children from their parents to a friend of the family. Because the children’s mother is a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applies. On appeal, the parents argue that the district court erred because efforts to reunify the family were not culturally appropriate and because there is not good cause to overcome the ICWA’s preference for placement in the home of the children’s maternal grandmother. We conclude that the evidence supports the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and, therefore, affirm.
A09-945
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Joseph Ponicki
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Michael Joseph Ponicki challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), arguing that the evidence does not support the conclusion that he is highly likely to reoffend and that the SDP Act is unconstitutional. Because substantial evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that appellant is highly likely to reoffend and because Minnesota appellatecourt decisions have previously rejected appellant’s constitutional challenges, we affirm.
A09-1042
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. L. M., J. D. S. and R. J., Parents.
HUDSON, Judge
Appellant county challenges the district court’s order placing respondent-mother’s child in long-term foster care, arguing that the district court erred by ordering the placement without the county’s “compelling reasons” and that the placement was not supported by the child’s best interests. Because the parties’ stipulation limited the issue before the district court to whether long-term foster care or termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interests, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its best-interests determination, we affirm.
A09-1291
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Hammill
STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), arguing that there is not clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that he is highly likely to engage in future acts of harmful sexual conduct and that the finding that he has an inability to adequately control his sexual impulses is clearly erroneous. Because evidence in the record supports the findings and because the findings constitute clear and convincing evidence supporting the conclusion that appellant meets the criteria for SDP commitment, we affirm.
Tags: civil, Minnesota, unpublished cases
Where abouts are you from? can’t tell from your use of english if its UK English or American English!