How Public is the Law: Part 10

The following email was sent Mon 12/17/2012 12:32 PM

It contained the following text and links:

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL

 

The following are the civil opinions issued today by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and designated by it as “unpublished and [not to] be cited except as provided by Minn.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.

= = = =

A12-0962

 

Zahra Kaliveh, et al.,

Appellants,

 

vs.

 

Target Clinic Medical Associates Minnesota, LLC d/b/a Target Clinic and/or Target Corporation, Respondent.

 

CHUTICH, Judge

In this medical-negligence case, appellant Zahra Kaliveh challenges the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of respondent Target Clinic Medical Associates Minnesota, LLC d/b/a Target Clinic and/or Target Corporation (Target Clinic).  Specifically, Kaliveh contends that the district court erred in concluding that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to present a factual question for the jury on the elements of standard of care and causation.  Because Kaliveh did not present sufficient evidence that Target Clinic breached the applicable standard of care, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0953

 

State of Minnesota,

by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Daniel Nosbush,

Appellant.

 

CLEARY, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s order and judgment enjoining him from working in animal agriculture unless supervised and imposing a civil penalty, arguing that the injunction is overbroad and the penalty excessive in relation to his financial situation.  Because the injunction issued neither goes beyond the requirements of this case nor imposes unnecessary hardship on appellant and because the penalty imposed was well within the district court’s discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0950

 

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

Respondent,

 

WaterLegacy, defendant intervenor,

Respondent.

 

CHUTICH, Judge

This dispute involves an environmental rule that protects wild rice, Minn. R. 7050.0224, subp. 2 (2011) (the Wild Rice Rule).  Appellant Minnesota Chamber of Commerce challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  The Chamber contends that the district court erred in finding that (1) the agency’s actions did not exceed its statutory authority; (2) the Wild Rice Rule is not unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the Chamber is not entitled to equitable relief or to a declaratory judgment.  Because the Chamber cannot prevail on an as-applied challenge to the Wild Rice Rule and because we do not have jurisdiction to rule on its request for declaratory judgment, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0817

 

Gamachu M. Beyena,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Sunburst Transit, LLC, et al.,

Respondents.

 

SCHELLHAS, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of all claims in his complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Because appellant failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0648

 

Kimberly Wood,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians – Red Lake Tribal Council, Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 

BJORKMAN, Judge

Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible for benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct.  Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s findings, the conduct for which relator was discharged constitutes misconduct, and relator received a fair hearing, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0445

 

Hom Van Lo, et al., claimants,

Respondents,

 

vs.

 

$4,756.00 in U. S. Currency, et al.,

Appellant.

 

HUDSON, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s decision that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over respondents’ action for judicial determination of their administrative-forfeiture action.  Because the district court did not err by concluding that it had jurisdiction over the matter when respondents filed the requisite proof of service with the district court administrator and when appellant received and returned a signed acknowledgment of service, we affirm.

= = = =

A12-0419

 

Brie Nodgaard,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Zapf Enterprises Limited – J Cousineau’s, Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 

CONNOLLY, Judge

Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit employment and no exception to ineligibility applied.  We affirm the ULJ’s decision that relator is not eligible under the exception for an applicant who quits based on medical necessity.  We also decline to accept relator’s argument and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)’s concession that relator is eligible for benefits pursuant to an exception for one who gives notice of quitting an unsuitable job within 30 days of starting it, which the ULJ did not reach.  But because, as DEED correctly concedes, relator is eligible for benefits pursuant to an exception applicable to one who quits a part-time job under certain circumstances, which the ULJ also did not reach, we reverse in part and remand for an additional evidentiary hearing.

= = = =

A12-0325

 

U.S. Consulting, LLC,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Kevin Lee Roggatz, et al.,

defendants and third party plaintiffs,

Respondents,

 

vs.

 

Dennis Larson, third party defendant,

Appellant.

 

KLAPHAKE, Judge

In this appeal from summary judgment, appellants Dennis Larson and U.S. Consulting, LLC (USC) challenge the district court’s adverse ruling on their breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract claims and the district court’s issuance of a protective order.  Respondents Kevin Roggatz and Ag Business Consulting, LLC (ABC) filed a related appeal to challenge the district court’s adverse ruling on their breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim and the district court’s denial of their motion to amend their complaint to include counterclaims of promissory estoppel and piercing the corporate veil.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for trial on appellants’ breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contracts claims.

= = = =

A12-0254, A12-1321

 

Jennifer A. Crawford,

Appellant (A12-0254)

Respondent (A12-1321),

 

vs.

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent (A12-0254) Appellant (A12-1321).

 

STONEBURNER, Judge

These consolidated appeals challenge posttrial orders following a jury’s award of damages to an insured who sued her insurer for no-fault and underinsured-motorist benefits.  The insured, appellant in file A12-0254, asserts that the district court erred by (1) offsetting unpaid past medical bills as having been discounted; (2) denying imposition of the 15% no-fault statutory interest penalty on those bills; and (3) denying her motion to amend the complaint to request taxable costs under Minn. Stat. § 604.18 (2010).  The insurer, appellant in file A12-1321, challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to vacate the judgment based on the insured’s acceptance of checks tendered by the insurer in satisfaction of the judgment.  The insurer also moved to dismiss the insured’s appeal, arguing that by accepting the checks, the insured waived the right to appeal.

We deny the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s appeal, affirm the district court’s denial of the insurer’s motion to vacate the judgment, reverse the district court’s offset of the insured’s unpaid past medical bills and denial of the statutory interest penalty on those unpaid bills, and affirm the district court’s denial of the insured’s motion to amend the complaint.  We remand to the district court for entry of judgment in accord with this opinion.

= = = =

A12-0513

 

In the Matter of:

Julie Hildre Zweifel n/k/a Mead, petitioner, Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Kyle Walter Zweifel,

Respondent.

 

STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of her petition for a 50-year extension of an order for protection against respondent.  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.

***

Why, in the world, is the MJB making case opinions available in .rft or docx?