Peter S. Popovich

In Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., the case involved a minor injured in a car accident seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from the insurer of the at-fault driver's vehicle, where the UIM coverage limits were equal to the liability limits. The trial court ordered arbitration of the UIM claim, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the 1985 amendments to Minnesota's No-Fault Act did not convert UIM coverage to "difference of limits" coverage, allowing recovery when damages exceed liability limits even if UIM limits do not exceed them. Additionally, an unaccepted tender of the liability limits did not constitute "payment" under the statute, preserving the right to pursue UIM benefits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Myers, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for possessing stolen property and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, which stemmed from a police officer's identification of him via a photo display as the driver who abandoned a truck containing stolen outboard motors, along with corroborating testimony from an informant. The court affirmed the convictions, determining that the photo lineup was not impermissibly suggestive, the state's delayed disclosure of the informant did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. It modified the sentence downward to the presumptive term, however, on the ground that the monetary value of the property could not serve as an aggravating factor for departure because it constituted an element of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act concerning two computer sales businesses in Albert Lea, Minnesota, that began operations in 1982; one used the name C/M Computer Services while the other adopted CBM Computer Center in 1985, leading to numerous documented instances of customer confusion. The trial court found a violation of the Act and issued an injunction allowing the second business to continue using a modified version of the name, such as "INFO PRO d/b/a CBM Computer Center," subject to size, listing, and notification requirements. The appellate court affirmed the finding of a violation and the need for injunctive relief but reversed the portions permitting limited continued use of the similar name, holding that such modifications were inconsistent with the trial court's own findings of confusion and the relief required by the statute, and remanded for a permanent and total ban.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a fatal two-car collision on a slushy, snow-covered section of Shepard Road in St. Paul, where the plaintiff's daughter was killed when the oncoming driver lost control; the plaintiff settled with the other driver and then sued the city, initially alleging negligent road design and later amending to claim negligent maintenance through failure to plow, sand, salt, or install concrete median barriers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the city was immune under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 because decisions about snow removal and barrier installation were discretionary planning-level acts rather than ministerial duties, and under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 4 because the road conditions resulted from natural weather without any affirmative negligent act by the city creating an artificial hazard. The court also noted that the plaintiff's amended complaint had eliminated the barrier claim, properly limiting the issues before it, and found no genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an employee who alleged his employers terminated him due to his marital status after discovering he was living with his unmarried fiancée, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act; he also claimed unauthorized deductions from his wages for rent. The employers had offered and the employee had verbally accepted a settlement through the Department of Human Rights, but he later refused to sign and filed a private lawsuit. The court affirmed summary judgment enforcing the settlement agreement as valid and binding based on the verbal acceptance. It further held that wage deductions made during employment were consensual under the employment contract and thus not subject to Minn. Stat. § 181.79, but the post-termination deduction of $175 without written authorization violated the statute, entitling the employee to double damages of $350.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Carl Thurner, who was terminated from his role as Program Director at the Philip Chemical Dependency Center and denied unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that his discharge was for misconduct. The court affirmed the Commissioner's determination, holding that Thurner engaged in misconduct by arguing with his employer over pay in the presence of patients, failing to maintain required time records or submit reports, refusing assigned duties such as the smoking program and adolescent work, disregarding instructions on patient file documentation, and walking out of a staff meeting. The court reasoned that these actions demonstrated willful disregard of the employer's interests rather than isolated incidents and that the personnel manual's optional disciplinary steps did not apply to or excuse the serious breaches involved.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over no-fault auto insurance income loss benefits under Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 3. The insured, who suffered a shoulder injury in a 1984 car accident that prevented her from returning to her prior quality control job, sought continued benefits after the insurer stopped payments following a medical release for light-duty work with permanent restrictions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insured on eligibility. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory definition of "inability to work"—a disability preventing substantial gainful employment for which the person is reasonably qualified—applied to her partial disability and inability to resume her original or similar work, with any issues about substitute employment affecting only the amount of benefits owed rather than basic eligibility.

torts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from the sale of two adjoining properties in Minneapolis, one owned jointly by appellant Richard Holt and a trust managed by respondents, and the other owned solely by the trust. After a partition action, the properties were sold together for $1,200,000, and the trial court allocated $326,435 to the jointly owned parcel using an equal value per square foot method based on appraisals and property characteristics. Appellant argued for a different allocation considering separate marketability and tax assessments, claiming the trial court abused its discretion. The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that partition proceedings are governed by equitable principles and the allocation was within the trial court's discretion as it exceeded the court-appointed appraiser's valuation and was not speculative in nature.

property

The case involved a former employee who sued his employer and coworkers for alleged workplace harassment involving whistling, singing, slogans, and comments about his sexual preference and alcohol issues, along with related claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and on appeal the court affirmed dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims but reversed and remanded for trial on the defamation and negligent infliction claims. The decision rested on a pretrial order narrowing the claims to emotional distress theories, insufficient medical evidence linking the plaintiff's diagnosed paranoia to the alleged conduct, and the need to allow further proceedings on the remaining claims.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a patient committed to a state mental health facility for anorexia nervosa who petitioned the court to compel the Commissioner of Human Services to follow recommendations from the facility's review board regarding her treatment, including establishing discharge criteria, transferring her to an open unit, and placing her in the least restrictive program. The trial court denied the petition, finding the recommendations advisory and the Commissioner's actions not arbitrary. The appellate court reversed the use of this petition as an improper remedy for challenging treatment decisions, holding instead that such decisions should be addressed through the review board or a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but affirmed that the treatment provided did not depart from accepted professional judgment standards.

healthcareprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a client suing his attorney for breach of contract and legal malpractice after the attorney represented him in a motion to reconsider summary judgment in an underlying lawsuit against an American Legion post for wrongful expulsion and defamation. The retainer agreement limited the attorney's work to bringing and arguing the reconsideration motion, which he did while withdrawing the expulsion claim due to lack of damages and evidence of actual expulsion; he also advised against appeal. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the attorney, finding no prima facie case for either claim, and denied a new trial motion. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the attorney fulfilled the contract, no expert testimony showed negligence on appeal advice or likelihood of success, and insufficient evidence existed on damages or expulsion. It also awarded the attorney $250 in fees for the frivolous appeal.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a mother who sued her attorney for legal malpractice, alleging he negligently failed to discover that the uninsured motorist who caused her son's fatal car accident might have had insurance coverage at the time. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, and the appeals court affirmed. It held that the mother's hearsay statements about possible coverage were inadmissible and properly disregarded, leaving no genuine issue of material fact on negligence at the time of the ruling. Even assuming coverage existed, the court found no damages because the mother had already recovered the same $25,000 limit from her own uninsured motorist policy.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between adjoining landowners in Pipestone, Minnesota, over the flow of surface water from rain and snowmelt across their properties. After the appellants raised their land to elevate a garden, increasing water runoff onto the respondents' lot, the respondents added a small amount of dirt to fill a low spot, which partially blocked the drainage. The appellants sued for a temporary injunction requiring removal of the dirt and installation of a drainage ditch, but the trial court denied the request, finding the respondents' use of their land reasonable and that no specific damages resulted from the standing water. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, ruling that Minnesota's reasonable use doctrine for surface waters was properly applied, the trial court's findings were adequate and evidence-based, and the three-inch elevation was a minimal and necessary adjustment consistent with normal urban property maintenance.

property

This case involved the dissolution of a 21-year marriage and the division of marital property along with awards of spousal maintenance. The trial court granted the wife temporary maintenance of $100 per month for five years, the homestead, half of the husband's military pension, a $10,000 cash payment from the husband, and other assets, while awarding the husband the lake property and his share of remaining assets. Both parties appealed, claiming the property division was inequitable and challenging the maintenance award. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the awards were reasonable in light of the parties' incomes, health, marital contributions, and the relevant statutory factors under Minnesota law for maintenance and equitable property division.

family lawproperty

In State v. Isaacson, the defendant pleaded guilty to a gross misdemeanor for driving under the influence with a revoked license and received a one-year sentence that did not specify whether it would run consecutive or concurrent to a separate 189-day sentence from a probation revocation in another county. Under Minnesota statute, the lack of specification made the sentences concurrent by default. The trial court later held a resentencing hearing and changed the term to consecutive upon learning of the prior revocation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the original sentence was legally authorized and that the U.S. Constitution bars increasing a sentence after it has been imposed, while also noting that the other court lacked authority to order consecutive service in any event.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Larson, the appellant sought post-conviction relief to vacate his 1969 state conviction for driving under the influence and open bottle law violations, claiming the guilty plea was uncounseled and thus unconstitutional, in an effort to prevent its use in enhancing federal parole guidelines for a later unrelated conviction. The trial court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the request was not a valid collateral attack on the conviction, that a 16-year delay weighed against relief, and that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was denied the right to counsel, given the existing judgment form stating he had been advised of his rights and the absence of any contrary record.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Mavis, the defendant was convicted in Minnesota of selling a controlled substance while on parole from a Nevada robbery conviction; he agreed as part of his Minnesota probation to pay extradition costs, but after his probation was later revoked and the prison sentence executed, the trial court continued the restitution obligation and denied credit for time served in Nevada. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the restitution obligation ended when probation ceased because continuing it would alter the original plea agreement and sentence in a way not authorized once imprisonment began. On the credit issue, the court affirmed the denial, applying precedent that credit is available only if the Minnesota charge was the sole reason for out-of-state detention, which it was not here since Nevada revoked parole for independent violations. The appeal itself was found timely as it challenged a post-sentencing order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Byron Armstrong against Joseph Heckman for damages from a 1978 car accident. The district court dismissed the case under a local rule requiring cases to be certified ready for trial or continued within a year, and later denied a motion to vacate the dismissal based on excusable neglect. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to relief under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 because he demonstrated a reasonable claim on the merits, due diligence after learning of the dismissal, and lack of substantial prejudice to the defendant, which outweighed the weakness of the excuse for missing the deadline.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between former business partners Eileen Maloney and Gregory Ketter over the dissolution of their bookstore and art gallery partnership, DreamHaven Gallery, which they formed orally in 1982. Maloney sued Ketter for breach of the partnership agreement, failure to maintain records, concealment of profits, and misrepresentation after discovering issues with the business finances and Ketter's use of partnership funds for personal expenses. The trial court ordered dissolution, awarded Maloney her 50% share of assets and profits plus punitive damages for misrepresentation, and denied Ketter's motion for amended findings or a new trial. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in most evidentiary and damages rulings and that the verdict was supported by the evidence, but remanded for additional specific findings on Ketter's contributions and interest, partnership debts, store fixtures valuation, and compensatory damages.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

The case involved appellant Eugene Sit's attempt to rescind his $30,000 investment in the T & M Properties partnership, which had been formed to acquire an apartment building, after the project encountered financial difficulties including tax and contract delinquencies, a fire, and eventual sale of the property. Sit argued that he did not intend to become a partner because his investment was conditioned on receiving partnership documents and financial information that were never provided, and that respondents induced the investment through fraud and misrepresentation by omitting key facts about the project's condition and making false statements about the use of funds and other investors. The trial court found that Sit became a partner upon investing and was not entitled to rescind, and the appellate court affirmed this ruling. The court reasoned that Sit's request for documents evidenced his intent to join the partnership, that any omitted facts did not constitute fraud given his investment experience and opportunity to investigate, and that alleged misrepresentations were not proven as the trial court's credibility determinations were supported by the record.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability