Court of Appeals Digest: March 25, 2019.

 
FREE EXCERPT

Byline: admin

Civil Published

Driver's License Revocation

Alcohol Testing

Appellant challenged the District Court's order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license, arguing that he successfully impeached his breath-test results by proving that he burped during the pretest observation period. The Court of Appeals held that, to impeach the credibility of breath-test results on the basis of burping, belching, or vomiting during the pretest observation period, a driver must sufficiently demonstrate that the burping, belching, or vomiting actually affected the test results. Affirmed.

A18-0372 Junker v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety (Koochiching County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180372-032519.pdf

Driver's License Revocation

Alcohol Testing

Appellant challenged the denial of his petition for the reinstatement of his driving privileges, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated by the deputy's failure to inform him that he could refuse to perform the field sobriety tests. The Court of Appeals held that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for police officers to inform vehicle drivers that they may refuse to perform field sobriety tests. Affirmed.

A18-0704 Otto v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety (Carver County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180704-032519.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Animals

Pet Ownership

Appellants challenged the District Court's judgment following a court trial in favor of respondent, ordering appellants to return a cat. They claimed that the District Court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous, and claimed that the District Court erred by not applying a "best for all concerned" standard that Minnesota has not adopted. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court's finding that appellants held respondent out as the cat's owner was not clearly erroneous, nor was its conclusion that respondent provided for the cat financially and was the primary caregiver during the relevant period. Affirmed.

A18-0941 Boehm v. Glick (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180941-032519.pdf

Civil Commitment

SDP & SPP; Transfer

Appellants county and Department of Human Services challenged a Supreme Court appeal panel's order granting respondent's petition for transfer to community preparation services, arguing that the panel (1) deprived appellants of due process by failing to provide them with the opportunity to present evidence; (2) abused its discretion by denying appellants' motion for reconsideration, and (3) clearly erred by granting respondent's transfer petition. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellants could not establish that the procedure in this case violated the principles of due process, that the panel did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants' request for reconsideration, and that the panel's decision to grant respondent's motion for transfer was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

A18-1793, A18-1851 In re Civil Commitment of Anderson (Supreme Court Appeal Panel)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181793-032519.pdf

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Grandparents

Appellant father challenged the District Court's grant of third-party custody of father's child to the child's maternal grandparents, arguing that (1) the District Court misapplied Minn. Stat. 257C.03, subd. 7, and (2) the District Court did not consider all of the evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting third-party custody to grandparents, and that the District Court properly weighed the evidence and made credibility determinations regarding grandfather's interference with father's parenting time. Affirmed.

A18-0543 Stack v. Green (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180543-032519.pdf

Domestic Relations

Spousal Maintenance; Modification

This matter came before the court following an evidentiary hearing from which the District Court awarded appellant permanent monthly maintenance in the amount of $500. Previously, appellant was awarded temporary monthly maintenance of $1,000 pursuant to the parties' stipulated judgment and degree that reserved the issue after 36 months. Appellant asserted that the District Court abused its...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP