Source: http://mn.gov/oah/administrative-law/Opinions/2011/?page=2&month=
Timestamp: 2014-07-29 02:38:02
Document Index: 317146028

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 45', '§ 14', '§ 211']

20 (417
58-3100-22322-2 Doering and Sasse v MnDOT
The Petitioners are employees of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) who were laid off during the shutdown. Each of the Petitioners filed a Petition for Relief under the Minnesota Veterans Preference Act (VPA) regarding their layoffs. Both contend that their layoffs resulted from the State’s lack of good faith in failing to enact a biennial budget. Both further contend that, although their jobs were deemed critical, they were not called to work during the shutdown, and other MnDOT employees performed their work. 58-3100-22321-2 Kevin Cole v MnCOR
December 09, 2011 - This case arises out of the State shutdown, which began on July 1, 2011. As of that date, most State employees were laid off. The shutdown occurred because the State had not approved an operating budget for the biennium commencing July 1, 2011. The budget issue was subsequently resolved, and State employees, including the Petitioner, returned to work on July 21, 2011, once funding was approved.
The Petitioner is an employee of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (the Department) who was laid off during the shutdown. On July 26, 2011, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief under the Minnesota Veterans Preference Act (VPA). The Petitioner contends that his layoff resulted from the State’s lack of good faith in failing to enact a biennial budget. He further asserts that his job was incorrectly determined not to be critical and that other Department employees performed a part of his job during the shutdown in spite of his job’s designation as non-critical.	11-0325-22355-CV John Nephew vs Highland Sanitation Incorporated, David Stewart, Susan Stewart, and Bob Cardinal
December 07, 2011 - Did Respondents Highland Sanitation Incorporated and its owners, David and Susan Stewart, make an illegal corporate contribution to Respondent Bob Cardinal, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 2? Did Respondent Bob Cardinal knowingly solicit, receive, or accept Highland’s corporate contribution to his election campaign, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.13, subd. 2; or aid, abet, or advise a violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 13?
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent Highland Sanitation Incorporated violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 2, by making a prohibited corporate contribution to Mr. Cardinal. The panel further concludes that the Complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent Bob Cardinal violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 13, and Minn. Stat. § 211B.13, subd. 2, by knowingly soliciting a campaign contribution that was a prohibited corporate contribution from Highland Sanitation. 7-1005-22362-2 In the Matter of the Application of Charles S. Drenth for a Real Estate Salesperson’s License
December 06, 2011 - Is it appropriate to deny a real estate salesperson’s license to Charles S. Drenth because of his conviction in April, 2007, for felony theft of over $2,500.00? Is it appropriate to deny Mr. Drenth’s application because of a judgment against him, docketed in November 2009, in the amount of $2,630.00? Is it appropriate to deny the license application of Mr. Drenth because of acts and practices that demonstrate that he is untrustworthy, financially irresponsible and unqualified to act under the authority of a license granted by the Commissioner, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7 and 82.82, subd. 1? The Administrative Law Judge concludes it is appropriate to deny the application of Charles S. Drenth for licensure as a real estate salesperson.
70-2400-21905-1 In the Matter of the Proposed Rules of the State Department of Public Safety Governing School Bus Drivers and Medical Qualifications for Commercial Driver’s License
December 05, 2011 - In order to correct the defects enumerated by the Administrative Law Judge in the attached Report, the agency shall either take the action recommended by the Administrative Law Judge, make different changes to the rule to address the defects noted, or submit the rule to the Legislative Coordinating Commission and the House of Representatives and Senate policy committees with primary jurisdiction over state governmental operations, for review under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.15, subdivision 4.
58-3100-22329-2 Erik D. Pakieser, Petitioner v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Respondent
December 05, 2011 - On July 27, 2011, the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs received from the Petitioner a Petition For Relief Under the Minnesota Veterans Preference Act. This matter concerns the effects of the State of Minnesota shutdown (State shutdown) that occurred from July 1, 2011 until July 21, 2011.
December 05, 2011 - On November 18, 2011, the Department filed documents with the Office of Administrative Hearings seeking review and approval of the above-entitled rules under Minn. Stat. § 14.26 and Minn. R. 1400.2300.
15-0325-22456-CV Michael John Luce vs Jay Whiting
December 02, 2011 - After reviewing the Complaint and the attached documents, and for the reasons set out in the attached Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint fails to set forth a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06. 119-1800-22393-2-In the Matter of Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Elizabeth A. Lambus and Robert E. Lambus
December 01, 2011 - 1. Did the Commissioner of the Department have reasonable cause to temporarily suspend Elizabeth A. Lambus and Robert E. Lambus’ family child care license (License) on October 18, 2011? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department had reasonable cause to temporarily suspend Licensee’s License.
2. Should the temporary immediate suspension of the Licensee’s family child care license remain in effect because there is reasonable cause to believe that the actions of individuals or conditions in the program pose an imminent risk of harm to the health, safety or rights of persons served by the program? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that there is sufficient evidence that conditions at the Licensee’s facility pose an imminent risk of harm to children and recommends that the Commissioner continue the order of temporary immediate suspension.
61-1800-22418-2-TIS Family Child Care License of Kimberly Landherr
December 01, 2011 - Has the Department established that there is reasonable cause to believe that a failure by Licensee to comply with applicable law or rule, the actions of Licensee or other individuals, or conditions in the program, pose an imminent risk of harm to the health, safety or rights of children served by Licensee?
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that children in Licensee’s care are at imminent risk of harm, and the temporary immediate suspension of Licensee’s family child care license should continue.