UNPUBLISHED OPINION LARKIN, Judge. Appellant challenges the district court's award of summary judgment for respondents. Because appellant fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact and because the district court correctly concluded that respondents are immune from suit, we affirm. FACTS Appellant Joseph Howard Yennie and respondent City of Pine Island are engaged in an ongoing dispute regarding debris on Yennie's property. This lawsuit stems from the city's most recent attempt to...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION HUSPENI, Judge. * Appellants allege that the district court erred by granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. Because we discern no question of material fact regarding tort claims raised by appellants, we affirm the award of summary judgment on those claims; because there is a question of material fact raised in appellants' inverse condemnation claim, we reverse and remand as to that claim. FACTS In the mid-1980s, Chisago County lakeshore-property owners...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge. Appellants, co-trustees for the heirs of a tunnel worker who drowned while working in a St. Paul storm-sewer tunnel, challenge summary judgment dismissing their wrongful-death claim against respondents, the city and the city's independent-contractor consulting engineers. The district court concluded that respondents did not owe a duty to decedent, who was an employee of another independent contractor hired by the city to perform the tunnel work....
UNPUBLISHED OPINION KALITOWSKI, Judge. Appellant Steven K. Lee retained respondent Faegre & Benson LLP to represent him in an employment dispute with two German companies. Respondent brought this action against appellant to recover unpaid legal fees based on the account-stated doctrine and breach of contract. Appellant counterclaimed that respondent breached their contract, offsetting the fees owed. Respondent moved for summary judgment on its claims and appellant's counterclaim. The district...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION TOUSSAINT, Judge. Appellant Twin City Yellow Taxi, Inc. challenges an order confirming an arbitration award and denying appellant's motion to vacate or modify the award. Because appellant failed to present evidence supporting its claim that the arbitrator exceeded her powers, because appellant has not shown that the district court's findings of no improper ex parte communications and waiver of a defense are clearly erroneous, and because the evidence supports the award of...
OPINION WRIGHT, Judge. In this action for the recovery of wages, appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) determining that his claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment are time-barred; and (2) dismissing his unjust-enrichment claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. FACTS 1...
OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge. On appeal from a stay of execution of respondent's sentence, the state argues that the district court erred by not executing the mandatory minimum sentence under Minn.Stat. 152.022, subd. 3(b). Because we conclude that the district court erred, we reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS Respondent Lindsey Marie Adams pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree controlled-substance crime in violation of Minn.Stat. 152.022, subd. 1(1) (2006), for the sale...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION HUDSON, Judge. Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) denying her unemployment-compensation benefits on the grounds that she was not discharged from employment and that she did not quit her job because of a good reason caused by her employer. We affirm. FACTS Relator Debra Johnsen worked as a supervisor for respondent Waymouth Farms, Inc., from February 5, 2008, until September 11, 2009. In July 2009, Johnsen complained to her supervisor about...
OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge. Relator challenges the decision on reconsideration by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he committed employment misconduct based on negligent driving. Specifically, relator argues that the ULJ erred on reconsideration by granting an additional evidentiary hearing to consider a police accident report because the employer did not show good cause for failing to submit the report at the first hearing. Relator...
OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge. In 2001, appellants sued respondents Altria Group Inc. (Altria) (formerly Philip Morris Companies Inc.) and Philip Morris Incorporated (Philip Morris) under Minn. Stat. 8.31, subd. 3a, 1 seeking damages and other relief, individually and on behalf of a class, alleging false advertising, consumer fraud, and deceptive trade practices regarding "light" cigarettes in violation of Minnesota consumer-protection statutes. The complaint also asserted claims of common-...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION LARKIN, Judge. Appellant challenges his convictions of first- and second-degree assault and two counts of attempted murder, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of a photographic line-up and by admitting hearsay evidence regarding a recanting witness's prior out-of-court identification of appellant. Appellant raises additional claims of error in a pro se brief. Because the photographic line-up was not unnecessarily suggestive,...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION STAUBER, Judge. On appeal from the district court's grant of an order for protection (OFP) to respondent-wife, appellant-husband argues that (1) the district court deprived him of the right to procedural due process of law under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions by refusing to accept testimony from witnesses appellant called to testify; (2) the remedial nature of the OFP statute does not allow the district court to deprive appellant of the constitutional right...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION WRIGHT, Judge. Gennine Navickas appeals the judgment in favor of respondent Karl Quilling, based on the district court's adoption of the consensual special magistrate's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. Navickas argues that the district court lacked authority, without the consent of the parties, to appoint a consensual special magistrate (CSM) to hear the case. Navickas also asserts that the CSM erred by (1) holding that there was not an enforceable contract...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION WORKE, Judge. Appellant challenges his first-degree-assault conviction, arguing that (1) the district court erred by finding that unlawfully seized evidence was admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine; (2) it was reversible error for the jury to hear that appellant had previously been in prison; (3) it was plain error for the jury to hear that appellant "did this to someone else"; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to show that appellant inflicted great bodily...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION KALITOWSKI, Judge. Appellant John Schmitz argues that his theft convictions should be reversed because (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions; (2) he did not effectively waive his right to counsel; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by denying his application for a public defender. Appellant also argues that he is entitled to a restitution hearing. We affirm in part in part, reverse in part, and remand for a restitution hearing....
UNPUBLISHED OPINION CONNOLLY, Judge. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of aiding and abetting attempted intentional second-degree murder for the benefit of a gang and aiding and abetting second-degree assault. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the two convictions, we affirm. FACTS On February 27, 2009, appellant Edisson Lema, age 17, and his friend E.M., also a juvenile, both members of the South Size Raza gang (SSRG), were on the...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION LANSING, Judge. Following a mistrial, a jury found Christopher Matthews guilty of first-degree burglary and illegal possession of a firearm. Matthews challenges his conviction on grounds of double jeopardy, an asserted violation of his right to a speedy trial, and the district court's failure to give a specific instruction on jury-verdict unanimity. Because we conclude the double-jeopardy prohibition did not bar retrial; that Matthews's right to a speedy trial was not...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION JOHNSON, Chief Judge. A Hennepin County jury found Anthony Steven Hill guilty of first-degree assault of a peace officer based on evidence that he pointed a loaded handgun at three police officers. Hill challenges his conviction on multiple grounds. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying Hill's pretrial motion to suppress evidence, did not err by not instructing the jury on a lesser-included offense, and did not err in responding to a question from the...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ROSS, Judge. This condemnation action involves a 2002 quick-take petition filed by the Eagan Economic Development Authority (EDA) to obtain title to privately owned property for a redevelopment project. The district court granted the petition and on appeal we reversed, concluding that the EDA exceeded the limited powers that the city transferred to it by resolution by allowing the taking without a binding development plan. The supreme court reversed that decision. Now, on...
UNPUBLISHED OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge. Pro se appellant challenges the district court's decision affirming a ruling by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services that respondent Hennepin County Human Services Department properly calculated appellant's state medical benefits for the period of March 2009 through October 2009. We affirm. FACTS Appellant Joseph Dixon receives federal benefits that include Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (RSDI) and Medicare. From the State of...
