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|
|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)|
|7||09/10/2002 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|8||09/10/2002 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|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|
|17||11/12/2002 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|18||11/12/2002 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|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)|
|24||12/06/2002 REPLY BRIEF|
|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|
|29||03/26/2003 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|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|