How Public is the Law: Part 5

Here’s the text and links from an email I got from the MSBA listerv I talked about in an earlier post (which transmits me some state, federal, civil and criminal opinions).

It says it was sent 12/31/12 at 11:23 AM, but it did not arrive in my email inbox until January 2, 2013:

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL

 

The following are the civil opinions issued today by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and designated by it as “unpublished and [not to] be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).”

 

If you see a decision that you want to read in full, you can get the full text of just that decision two ways.  You can obtain the decisions in PDF directly from the Court by going to http://www.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx?page=814; or you can get copy in DOCX and RTF by going to http://www2.mnbar.org/ctops , and clicking on the link with the corresponding file number.

= = = =

A12-0927

 

James A. Dolphy,

Appellant,

 

Michael P. Haege,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

 

City of Minneapolis,

Respondent.

 

LARKIN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit, which alleged that respondent’s licensing ordinance requiring certification for tree servicers is unconstitutional.  Because the district court converted respondent’s motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 to one for summary judgment without allowing appellant a reasonable opportunity to present all materials made pertinent to such a motion, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A12-0811

 

Timothy O’Keefe,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Robert Carter, et al.,

Respondents.

 

JOHNSON, Chief Judge

One of three members of the Fish Lake Township Board sued the other two board members, the town clerk, and the township under the Open Meeting Law.  The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants.  We conclude that the district court properly applied a two-year statute of limitations to the Open Meeting Law claim.  We also conclude that the district court did not err by ruling on the summary judgment motion without giving appellant more time to conduct discovery or to amend his complaint.  And we further conclude that the district court did not err by granting the motion for summary judgment because appellant’s Open Meeting Law claim, to the extent it is timely, is based solely on two e-mail messages, that do not constitute a “meeting” under the law.  Therefore, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0620

 

Christopher Labalestra,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

The Columns Resource Group, Inc.,

Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 

HOOTEN, Judge

Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was terminated from his employment for employment misconduct and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits.  Relator argues that his termination resulted from discrimination against him as a disabled individual or as retaliation for asking for accommodation for his disability, that any insubordination was merely a single incident, and that the ULJ failed to conduct the hearing in a fair manner.  Based on our deference to the ULJ’s findings and credibility determinations, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0501

 

In re the Marriage of:

Cynthia Kay Champlin, petitioner,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Kevin Gale Champlin,

Appellant,

 

and

 

Dakota County, intervenor,

Respondent.

 

BJORKMAN, Judge

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to modify parenting time and child support, arguing the district court erred by (1) not adopting the parenting consultant’s parenting-time modification and (2) including financial support he receives from his parents in his gross income.  In a related appeal, respondent challenges the denial of her child-support-modification motion, contending the district court erred in calculating appellant’s gross income.  We affirm.

= = = =

A12-0496

 

Trevor Thomas Hawkinson, petitioner,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Jill Marie Hawkinson n/k/a Jill Marie Owens, Appellant.

 

HOOTEN, Judge

In an appeal from modification of parenting time and child support, appellant mother contends that the district court clearly erred by finding: (1) that there had been a change in circumstances since the issuance of the original marriage dissolution decree; and, (2) that her children’s emotional health and development were endangered as a result of her failure to provide stable and appropriate education to meet their special needs and that it abused its discretion by modifying parenting time based on its finding of endangerment.  We affirm.

= = = =

A12-0455,

A12-0485,

A12-0486

 

Alliance Bank,

Respondent (A12-455),

 

Lecy Construction, Inc.,

Plaintiff (A12-485),

Appellant (A12-486),

 

vs.

 

Daryll C. Dykes, et al.,

Appellants (A12-455, A12-485),

Respondents (A12-486),

 

Alliance Bank,

Respondent (A12-485, A12-486),

 

Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Respondent (A12-485, A12-486), and Daryll C. Dykes, et al., third party plaintiffs, Appellants (A12-455, A12-485),

 

vs.

 

Alliance Bank,

third party defendant,

Respondent (A12-485),

 

Alliance Bank, et al.,

Third Party Defendants (A12-486),

 

Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, third party defendant, Respondent (A12-455, A12-485),

 

Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc., a New York corporation, Third Party Defendant (A12-455, A12-485), Respondent (A12-486).

 

CHUTICH, Judge

In this foreclosure-related dispute, appellants Daryll and Sharon Dykes, and respondent and cross-appellant Lecy Construction, Inc. (Lecy), asserted a number of claims against respondents Alliance Bank, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, and Emigrant Mortgage Company.  The district court granted summary judgment to respondents on all of appellants’ and cross-appellant’s claims. On appeal from summary judgment, the Dykeses argue that the district court erred by (1) concluding that their claims and defenses are barred by the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations; (2) denying a motion to compel discovery; and, (3) granting Alliance Bank attorney fees.  Cross-appellant Lecy contends that the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist; (2) determining that its claims are barred by the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations; (3) ruling that the theory of respondeat superior did not apply; and (4) denying a number of other motions brought by Lecy.  Because we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on all claims, we affirm.

= = = =

A11-2172

 

In re the Marriage of:

Alan Edward Bottke, petitioner,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Carol June Bottke,

Appellant.

 

JOHNSON, Chief Judge

Alan Edward Bottke and Carol June Bottke were married for approximately 20 years.  Their dissolution decree requires Mr. Bottke to pay temporary spousal maintenance in diminishing amounts until August 2016, at which time the maintenance obligation ceases.  Ms. Bottke challenges the maintenance award on the ground that the district court should have awarded permanent, not temporary, maintenance.  We affirm.

= = = =

A12-1441

 

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:

Richard Thomas Martinez.

 

RODENBERG, Judge

In this civil commitment appeal, appellant argues that the district court should have accorded greater weight to the opinions of two of the five doctors who examined him during the course of the proceedings below.  Because case law clearly mandates deference to the district court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we affirm.  Appellant also raises two other issues on appeal.  However, appellant raises these issues without adequate argument or citation to authority, and has therefore waived consideration of those issues on appeal.

= = = =

A12-1366

 

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:  David Leroy Gamble, Jr.

 

SCHELLHAS, Judge

Appellant, who is indeterminately committed as a sexually dangerous person, challenges the district court’s order denying his rule 60.02 motion to vacate his judgment of commitment and set his case for trial or order his “immediate placement in a viable, accredited program which offers meaningful sex offender treatment that is suitable for the alleged diagnosis as found by [the district] Court.” (Footnote omitted.) We affirm.

= = = =

A12-1086

 

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:

James Irvin Rigenhagen.

 

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and sexual psychopathic personality, largely asserting errors in the district court’s findings of fact.  Because the record contains adequate evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact and there is no merit to appellant’s additional arguments, we affirm.

= = = =

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—-

You are subscribed to msba-ctops as:

jill@jillclarkllc.com.  You can unsubscribe by sending a blank email to <leave-msba-ctops@lists.statebar.gen.mn.us>.

To change an address, please unsubscribe the old one, then subscribe the new.  Suggestions for improvements are always welcome.  Please send them to mco@statebar.gen.mn.us

***

These links SHOULD REMAIN IN THIS POST.