Koehler v. County of Grand Forks
Peggy A. Koehler, Plaintiff and Appellant
County of Grand Forks,
Grand Forks County Board
of Commissioners and Gary
Malm, Arvin Kvasager, William
"Spud" Murphy, Constance Triplett
and Robert Wood, individually,
and Arlene Lucke and Mary Ann
Gunderson, jointly and severally, Defendants and Appellees
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Lawrence E. Jahnke
|Nature of Action:||Employer/Employee Dispute|
|Term:||12/2002  Argument: 12/12/2002 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2003 ND 44|
658 N.W.2d 741
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Did the Trial Court err in determining that a genuine issue of fact did not exist as to whether Ms. Koehler was disabled?
Did the Trial Court err in finding no tortious interference with contract?
Did the Trial Court err in dismissing Ms. Koehler's negligent supervision claim on the damage element?
Reply Brief Issues
Did Ms. Koehler make a prima facie case that she has a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity?
Did Ms. Koehler suffer adverse employment action because of her disability?
Did Ms. Koehler present sufficient facts to establish a Harassment claim based on disability?
Did Ms. Koehler present sufficient facts to establish a Tortious Interference with contractual relations claim?
Did the Trial Court error in granting summary judgment on Ms. Koehler's negligent supervision claim?
Were the Individual Appellees properly named in the individual and official capacities?
Were the Individual Appellees entitled to Statutory Immunity?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Was Summary Judgment Properly Granted on Koehler's Disability Discrimination Claim?
1. Did Koehler Fail to Present Sufficient Facts to Establish That She is Disabled?
2. Did Koehler Fail to Present Sufficient Facts to Establish That She Suffered Any Adverse Employment Action Because of a Disability?
3. Did Koehler Fail to Present Sufficient Facts to Support a Claim for Harassment Based Upon a Disability?
B. Was Summary Judgment Properly Granted on Koehler's Claim For Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations?
1. Did Koehler Fail to Present Facts Sufficient to Show Any Breach of Contract?
2. Did Koehler Fail to Present Facts Sufficient to Support a Finding That Her Supervisors Instigated Any Breach of Contract?
3. Did Koehler Fail to Present Adequate Facts to Establish That Her Supervisors Acted Without Justification?
C. Was Summary Judgment Properly Granted on Koehler's Claim for Negligent Supervision Because No Evidence Was Presented to Establish the Prima Facie Elements?
D. Were Koehler's Claims Against the Individual Appellees in Their Official Capacities Improperly Redundant?
E. Were the Individual Appellees Entitled to Statutory Immunity?
|Add Docket 20020188 RSS|
|1||07/16/2002||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 07/15/2002|
|2||07/16/2002||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (S. Michelle Bredemeier): 07/15/2002|
|3||07/16/2002||RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (S. Michelle Bredemeier): 09/03/2002|
|4||08/02/2002||TRANSCRIPT DATED April 22, 2002|
|5||08/05/2002||DISK - TRA (4-22-02)|
|6||08/12/2002||RECORD ON APPEAL (2 Volumes)|
|9||09/19/2002||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (via facsimile)|
|10||09/19/2002||ACTION BY CLERK (w/understanding o.a. in December). Granted: 11/13/2002|
|11||09/20/2002||Motion for extension of time to file AEB & Affidavit (acted on via fax)|
|12||09/23/2002||Response to Motion for Ext. of Time from AT Timothy Hill|
|13||10/02/2002||Corrected TOA & page 16 for ATB|
|14||10/02/2002||DISK - ATB (e-mailed)|
|15||10/24/2002||MOTION FOR Relief from North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(h), Length of AEB(18,000 words)|
|16||10/24/2002||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot/Relief/Length of AEB). Denied|
|19||11/12/2002||DISK - AEB|
|20||11/22/2002||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF; AFFIDAVIT OF TIMOTHY P HILL IN SUPPORT OF MRY (faxed)|
|21||11/22/2002||ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK (RYB must be rec'd & filed in Clerk's office no later than. Granted: 12/09/2002|
|22||11/22/2002||Monday, Dec. 9; must also be served on opposing counsel by 12-09-02)|
|23||11/25/2002||Mot/Ext/Time/RYB & Aff/Support (same as faxed copy filed 11/22/02)|
|25||12/09/2002||DISK - RYB|
|26||12/12/2002||APPEARANCES: Timothy P. Hill; Margaret Moore Jackson|
|27||12/12/2002||ARGUED: Hill; Jackson (Vol Y; Page 65)|
|28||12/12/2002||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|30||03/26/2003||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|31||03/26/2003||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|32||03/27/2003||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|34||04/23/2003||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|35||08/06/2008||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|