Source: http://mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/January_2013_summary.htm
Timestamp: 2018-06-22 15:20:32
Document Index: 532458871

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 518', '§ 65', '§ 257', '§ 257', '§ 259', '§ 507']

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jeffrey Allen Silvernail, Appellant – Case No. A12-0021: Following a jury trial, appellant Jeffrey Silvernail was convicted of first-degree murder. On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain Silvernail’s conviction; and (2) whether Silvernail is entitled to a new trial because the district court closed the courtroom during closing arguments. (Wilkin County)
Nonoral: Michael Calvin Francis, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-1225: Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Francis was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in 2004. The supreme court affirmed these convictions on direct appeal. Francis filed his third petition for postconviction relief in February 2012. The district court summarily denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Francis’s third postconviction petition is time-barred; and (2) whether Francis’s third postconviction petition is procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976). (Hennepin County)
In re the Marriage of: Kathy Lynn Haefele, Respondent vs. Douglas Alan Haefele, Appellant – Case No. A11-1225: Kathy Haefele and Douglas Haefele were married in 1990 and divorced in 2000. Kathy was awarded physical custody of the couple’s children, and Douglas was obligated to pay child support. In 2010, Douglas filed a motion to modify his child support obligation based on statutory changes to the child support guidelines that now took into account both parents’ income when determining a child support obligation.
Kathy is an owner, along with her brothers, in a subchapter S corporation. Kathy received substantial cash distributions from this corporation between 2007 and 2010. Most of these distributions were either transferred to another entity, which is also a family-owned business, or were to cover Kathy’s income taxes on her share of the income of the subchapter S corporation. The district court included all of the distributions in Kathy’s income for child support purposes. The court of appeals reversed the district court.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether distributions from a subchapter S corporation to a shareholder, which are then transferred by that shareholder to another business entity also owned by that shareholder, are gross income for purposes of determining the shareholder parent’s child support under Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2012); and (2) whether distributions to a shareholder of a subchapter S corporation to cover the shareholder’s tax liability are included in a shareholder parent’s gross income for purposes of calculating that parent’s child support. (Hennepin County)
Donald Morris Fernow, Respondent, Country Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant vs. Michael Donald Gould, et al., Respondents – Case No. A11-1904: Respondent Michael Gould was operating a snowplow for respondent City of Alexandria when the snowplow collided with a pick-up truck driven by respondent Donald Fernow. Fernow brought a negligence action, and his insurer, appellant Country Mutual Insurance Company, intervened. Country Mutual also submitted an arbitration claim, seeking indemnification from the City for basic economic loss benefits paid to Fernow under the No-Fault Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41-.71 (2012). The arbitrator ultimately concluded that the City’s “defense of governmental statutory immunity does not apply to this matter” and ordered the City to indemnify Country Mutual. The district court confirmed the arbitration award. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by determining that the defense of statutory immunity did not apply.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether an arbitrator may interpret the No-Fault Act; (2) whether an arbitrator may interpret a statute that may affect application of the No-Fault Act; and (3) if the arbitrator had the power to interpret the No-Fault Act and related statutes, whether the district court erred in confirming the arbitration award. (Douglas County)
Joane M. Christianson, Respondent vs. Travis Henke, Respondent, Claire Holewa, Appellant – Case No. A11-1319: Appellant Claire Holewa and respondent Travis Henke are the parents of a son. Holewa and Henke never married, but they signed a recognition of parentage with respect to their son. Respondent Joane Christianson, who is the boy’s paternal grandmother, filed a petition to establish grandparent visitation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 2(a) (2012). The district court granted Christianson visitation. It also denied Holewa’s motion to vacate the visitation order, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction to award the grandparent visitation. The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a recognition of parentage is a proceeding for parentage for purposes of petitioning for grandparent visitation under Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 2(a). (Benton County)
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Lawrence Walter Ulanoswki, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 316015 – Case No. A12-0846: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
In the Matter of the Petition of: S.G. and L.G. to Adopt P.U.K. and D.F.K., In the Matter of the Petition of: D.D. and L.D. to Adopt P.U.K. and D.F.K. – Case No. A12-0066: P.U.K. and D.F.K. are sisters whose biological parents have had their parental rights terminated. Both girls have lived with foster parents S.G. and L.G. since birth. Both the foster parents and the girls’ paternal grandmother and her husband filed petitions to adopt the girls. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 259.57, subd. 2(b) (2012), a court in determining appropriate adoption “shall consider placement, consistent with the child’s best interests and in the following order, with (1) a relative or relatives of the child, or (2) an important friend with whom the child has resided or had significant contact.” Following a contested trial, the district court concluded that the girls’ best interest dictated that they not be removed from their foster parents, and it granted the foster parents’ adoption petition. The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the statutory preference for adoption by a relative; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it was in the best interests of the girls to be adopted by their foster parents. (Hennepin County)
Marine Credit Union, Respondent vs. Anne K. Detlefson-Delano, Appellant, Jack Antonio, Respondent – Case No. A11-1925: Appellant Anne Detlefson-Delano obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on her homestead from respondent Marine Credit Union. Marine Credit Union did not require her husband’s signature on the mortgage because appellant represented that he was not available and had conveyed his interest in the property to her by quitclaim deed. Appellant later defaulted on the loan, and Marine Credit Union commenced a mortgage foreclosure action. In response, appellant claimed that the mortgage is void because her husband had not signed the mortgage as required by Minn. Stat. § 507.02 (2012). The district court granted summary judgment to appellant, concluding that the mortgage is void because it lacks the signatures of both spouses. The court of appeals reversed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a quitclaim deed, executed by one spouse to the other, divests the grantor spouse of statutory and marital homestead rights and negates the statutory requirement that both spouses sign a conveyance of the homestead to a third party. (Fillmore County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Sharon Karen Wilson, Appellant – Case No. A11-1041: The State charged appellant Sharon Wilson with fleeing a police officer by means other than a motor vehicle. Before trial, Wilson requested a jury instruction on the defense of voluntary intoxication, arguing that fleeing a police officer by means other than a motor vehicle was a specific-intent crime. The district court denied Wilson’s request. A jury trial was held. The jury found Wilson guilty as charged. The court of appeals affirmed Wilson’s conviction.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether fleeing a police officer by means other than a motor vehicle is a specific-intent crime. (Hennepin County).
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Barry V. Voss, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 113293 – Case No. A11-2038: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
Nonoral: David Michael Tscheu, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0480: Following a jury trial, appellant David Tscheu was convicted of first-degree murder in 2006. The supreme court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Tscheu filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging, in part, he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence establishing that someone else may have killed the victim. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Tscheu’s postconviction petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded Tscheu had not demonstrated he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. (Crow Wing County)
Nonoral: Kevin W. Harbaugh, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A12-1342: On September 28, 2011, respondent the Commissioner of Revenue issued an order assessing relator Kevin Harbaugh additional tax and interest for tax years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The Minnesota Tax Court extended the 60-day period to appeal from the Commissioner’s order for an additional 30 days. As a result, the last day for Harbaugh to file his appeal was December 27, 2011. Harbaugh mailed his notice of appeal to the tax court on December 21, 2011. The tax court stamped Harbaugh’s notice of appeal as being filed on December 28, 2011. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the tax court lack jurisdiction because of the untimely appeal. The tax court dismissed the appeal.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the mailbox rule creates a presumption of timely filing when a notice of appeal is placed in the mail at least 3 days before the filing deadline; and (2) whether the tax court’s finding that the tax court received Harbaugh’s notice of appeal on December 28, 2011, is clearly erroneous. (Minnesota Tax Court)