For my employment law class we were assigned Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc.

This case arises out of a “birthday spanking” given to appellant Jeremy Meintsma by five co-employees with a two-by-four fashioned into a paddle at his place of employment, Loram Maintenance of Way, on May 1, 2001.

Meintsma sued Loram and the co-employees individually, alleging claims of assault and battery, aiding and abetting assault and battery, respondeat superior, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and constructive discharge, as well as a claim for punitive damages.

According to Meintsma, the birthday spanking resulted in injuries to his buttocks, wrists, and elbow. Loram and the employees moved for summary judgment, arguing that Meintsma’s exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).

Apparently this “spanking” was more in the nature of a birthday-beatdown:

Some members of Loram’s management were aware of the spanking practice, and a manager participated in at least one spanking. Indeed, according to Meintsma, sometime before his spanking he approached a supervisor and asked what would happen “when these guys tr[y] to get me on my birthday if I defend myself.” Meintsma also claims that on the day he was spanked he approached a supervisor and indicated that he did not want to be spanked.

Meintsma’s spanking occurred a few days after his birthday when a group of his co-employees grabbed him from behind, wrestled him off his stool and onto the concrete floor, and then spanked him with a wooden paddle fashioned from a two-by-four. The manner and number of times Meintsma was spanked is disputed. According to Meintsma, after the spanking, he spit blood on the floor, got up and shook hands with the individuals who spanked him, went to the washroom, and cleaned up with the help of one of the co-employees.

That evening Meintsma went to the emergency room. There, the doctor found that Meintsma had contusions to his back, abrasions to his left arm, muscle spasms in his lower back, and a superficial cut on his left wrist. Upon discharge, Meintsma was given pain medication and told not to go to work for the rest of the week. The emergency room doctor reported the incident to the Wright County Sheriff. Meintsma also reported the incident to the police. Ultimately, the individuals who participated in the birthday spanking were charged with fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct. They eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and received a stay of imposition of sentence for one year.

Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc., 684 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2004) a review of the case is on Findlaw.

You know you really messed up when the court cites Poe:

Plaintiffs’ preparation of the record evokes two images, neither one of which is flattering to plaintiffs.

The first is that they conceive of the court as a hunting dog with no higher duty than to run down every fox, sniffing out evidence in the record, wherever it may exist.

The second is Poe’s Purloined Letter, in which a valuable letter is hidden in plain sight among many other letters.

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc. W.D. Wisconsin. 2009. The full opinion is here in PDF format. Warning: this is a patent case.

State of Wisconsin v. DAY

PER CURIAM. The Defendant (Mr. Day) appeals pro se from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, one count of exposing a child to harmful materials, and one count of child enticement. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and the order. [...]

In his postconviction motion and on appeal, Day challenges various aspects of his trial counsel’s representation. We address his arguments seriatim.

Day contends that his trial counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to impeach L.K. (a 12 year-old) with alleged “inconsistent” testimony as to how much pubic hair Day has. Day argues that at the preliminary hearing, L.K. testified that Day had a lot of pubic hair, but at trial testified that he could not recall a significant amount of pubic hair on Day.

At trial, Day testified that he shaves his pubic region, and explained why. Prior to trial, he also took photographs of himself in jail to demonstrate that his pubic region was shaved. Day contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have taken the pictures himself to ensure the quality of the images, and for failing to introduce the photographic evidence at trial.

Read the rest of this entry »

My question is, if a 23-year old girl is so mentally impaired that she can’t give consent, then why did her parents let her out of the house?

In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. T. R., Child

Appellant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that he had the requisite intent to aid and abet third-degree criminal sexual conduct or that he was aware that the victim was mentally impaired. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s delinquency adjudication, we affirm.

Read the rest of this entry »

From my Crimlaw Class:

May a person who enters the habitat of another at 3 o’clock in the morning for the announced purpose of killing him, and who commences to beat the startled sleeper’s bed with a stick and set fires under him, be entitled to use deadly force in self defense after the intended victim shoots him in the back with an arrow? Upon the basis of these bizarre facts, we hold that he may not, and instead, must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (with apologies to William Shakespeare and Hamlet, Act III, sc. 1).

Read the rest of this entry »

Hm. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Officer Brent Heller testified that he heard Defendant tell Lemonier that he had swallowed an eight ball of methamphetamine and that Defendant was sweating and “looking pretty rough.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Termination of parental rights cases have the most horrifying fact patterns.¹

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.K.B. and M.A.R., Parents. ²

On April 4, 2006, before the birth of C.C.R. and D.B., Isanti County Family Services (ICFS) received a report regarding C.R., born November 22, 2004, and D.T.R., born May 14, 2002, stating that the children’s home was “filthy,” that syringes and small baggies commonly used to package drugs were present in the home, and that mother had been heard asking others to obtain Vicodin for her.

ICFS conducted a welfare check of the home and observed that the inside of the home was littered with dirty dishes, old food, sharp knives within the children’s reach, chemicals, tools, and animal feces. D.T.R. was playing in the yard, which was “cluttered with broken glass, chemicals, car parts, and other garbage.”

D.T.R.’s mattress was “extremely dirty” and had no linens other than a blanket. A significant amount of animal feces was in the room. ICFS informed father, who was the only parent home at that time, that D.T.R. would be removed from the home due to the hazards observed, and that appellants must also give C.R. to ICFS.

When appellants turned over custody of C.R., she was afflicted with a sinus infection, a double-ear infection, and a possible throat infection.

² The full case is here.

My goodness.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Arthur Litzau, Alleged Mentally Ill¹

Appellant Robert Arthur Litzau challenges the district court order committing him as mentally ill…

Appellant is currently 66 years old. In 1999, he was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. As a result, he is required to register as a predatory offender.

In June of 2003, appellant was charged with possessing an incendiary device and making terroristic threats after he threatened to “blow up” a residence and “kill as many police officers as possible.”

Read the rest of this entry »