Alice's Advocates, DDA, Bill & Sharon

Alice's Advocates, DDA, Bill & Sharon
Loading...

Crimes Against Humanity

Sunday, July 19, 2009

AliceKrengel_Won107-310 Legal Briefs

Briefs filed in City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Appellant.

Minnesota State Law Library

Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection

Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.

CASE NAME: City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Appellant.
Read the opinion in this case at A07-310
CITATION: 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)

Legal Issues in APPELLANT'S BRIEF:

  • 1. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appellant from living in her own home for a year without first finding that appellant was responsible for two or more behavioral incidents constituting a nuisance under Minnesota nuisance law within the 12 month period preceding the request for an injunction? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. §617.81, subdivisions 1,2 and 4; Minn. Stat. §617.82; Minn. Stat. §617.83.
  • 2. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appellant from living in her own home for a year without first finding that appellant was responsible for conduct which adversely affected any considerable number of members of the public within the 12 months preceding the request for an injunction? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. §617.81, subdivisions 1 and 2; Minn. Stat. §617. 82; Minn. Stat. §617.83; Minn. Stat. §609.74(1).
  • 3. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appellant from living in her own home for a year without describing the nuisance conduct maintained or permitted by appellant or identifying any existing or ongoing nuisance condition to be enjoined? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Minn. Stat. §617.82; Minn. Stat §617.83.
  • 4. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appel1ant from living in her own home for a year for non-compliance with an abatement plan which did not constitute nuisance activity under Minnesota law? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. 617.81, subdivisions 1,2 and 4; Minn. Stat. §617.82; Minn. Stat. §617.83.
  • Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF:

  • I. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ISSUE THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION USING THE TIMEFRAME OF JULY 2004 TO JULY 2005 WHEN A NOTICE OF INJUNCTION WAS SERVED ON APPELLANT ON JULY 29, 2005 OUTLINING 13 SEPARATE NUISANCE INCIDENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD AND WHEN APPELLANT THEREAFTER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE ABATEMENT PLAN ENTERED INTO ON AUGUST 17, 2005? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat § 617.81, Subds. 1,2,4; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83; City of St Paul v. Spencer, 497 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. App. 1993).
  • II. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ISSUE THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION AFTER DETERMINING THAT APPELLANT MAINTAINED AND PERMITTED A CONDITION THAT UNREASONABLY ANNOYS, INJURES OR ENDANGERS THE SAFETY, HEALTH, MORALS, COMFORT OR REPOSE OF ANY CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHEN IT FOUND THAT APPELLANT CREATED A NUISANCE AS DEFINED BY MINN. STAT. § 609.74(1)? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 617.81, Subds. 1,2; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83; Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1).
  • III. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE CONDUCT TO BE ENJOINED WHEN IT FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT (1) THERE WERE 29 POLICE REPORTS REGARDING THE PROPERTY RANGING FROM INTOXICATED MALE GUESTS, TO AN ASSAULT, TO UNRELATED GUESTS; (2) A NEIGHBOR SAW APPELLANT SMASH OUT THE WINDOW OF A PICKUP TRUCK IN HER DRIVEWAY; AND (3) YELLING, ARGUING AND SCREAMING OBSCENITIES ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT HAS OCCURRED? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 617.81, Subds. 1,2,4; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83.
  • IV. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENJOIN APPELLANT DUE TO HER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABATEMENT PLAN? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 617.81, Subds. 1,2,4; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83.
  • Also filed: APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF


    Return to Home Page

    No comments:

    AngelsAndersonAdvocates

    AngelsAndersonAdvocates

    Common Law