THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
Minneapolis attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Minneapolis Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawstpaul.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Cynthia Khan,
Relator,
vs.
ACR Homes, Inc.,
Respondent,
DIETZEN, Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the
unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator had been discharged for
misconduct and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits, arguing that the determination was not supported by the
record. Because the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for
misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a
whole, we affirm.

A05-2440
Jill S. Hansen, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Robert J. Hansen,
Respondent.
MINGE, Judge
Appellants challenges the district court's findings that (1)
appellant Bryan Hansen unduly influenced the execution of a 1993
amendment to the Hansen Family Trust; (2) Bryan unduly influenced his
father's 2000 grant of power of attorney to Bryan; and (3) Bryan
breached his fiduciary duty to the Hansen Family Trust. Because the
district court's findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

A05-2571
In the Matter of the
Welfare of: J.A., Child.
LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from disposition following a delinquency
adjudication, JA challenges the adequacy of the facts and the district
court's findings to support an out-of-home placement. Because the
factual record and the district court's findings sufficiently support
the disposition, we affirm.

A05-2574
In re the Marriage of: Richard A. Lisser, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Donna J. Lisser,
Respondent.
PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order modifying spousal maintenance,
appellant-husband argues that the district court erred (1) in
determining respondent-wife's income; (2) in determining husband's
monthly expenses; (3) by not making the modification effective
retroactively to the date of the motion; and (4) by not awarding him
attorney fees. We affirm.

A06-52
Kimberly J. Gura,
Relator,
vs.
Paul Stafford Electric, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) improperly
determined that she quit her employment without good reason caused by
her employer, alleging that she had good reason to terminate her
employment because (1) she worked in an adverse environment for more
than a year; (2) the adverse environment was created and facilitated by
her employer, who was informed about the situation but did not take
appropriate actions to rectify it; (3) there was miscommunication at the
hearing about questions posed to her by the ULJ; and (4) she never
received information as to a question regarding her initial denial of
benefits by the Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED). We reverse.

A06-95
Innsbruck Village Association,
Appellant,
vs.
Stock Roofing, Inc.,
Respondent,
Transcontinental Insurance Company,
an Illinois corporation, et al.,
Respondents.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Innsbruck Village Association entered into a
Miller-Shugart settlement with respondent Stock Roofing, Inc. (Stock
Roofing), which was insured by respondents Transcontinental Insurance
Company, Continental Casualty Company, and American Casualty Company
(respondents). Appellant challenges the district court's denial of its
request for leave to serve a supplemental garnishment summons and
complaint on respondents.
Because we conclude that Stock Roofing violated its duty of
cooperation by entering into a Miller-Shugart settlement when
respondents had not fully denied coverage, causing the settlement to be
unenforceable, we affirm.

A06-105
Sarah Bruch,
Respondent,
vs.
Wendy's FourCrown, Inc.,
Appellant.
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's determination that the
handwritten settlement agreement between the parties is enforceable and
that respondent did not breach a material term of the agreement when she
reported the settlement proceeds to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
as taxable income. Appellant also argues that the district court abused
its discretion when it ordered appellant to pay respondent's attorney
fees as consequential damages of appellant's breach. Because we
conclude that the settlement agreement was enforceable and that
respondent did not breach the agreement, we affirm in part. With
respect to the attorney-fees issue, we conclude that the award of
attorney fees as consequential damages under Minn. Stat. ? 555.08 (2004)
was an abuse of discretion, and, therefore, we reverse in part. But
because the motion for an award of attorney fees was also based on Minn.
Stat. ? 549.211 (2004), we remand to the district court to make
findings, if it deems it appropriate, as a basis for an award of
attorney fees pursuant to the statute.

A06-189
Ricki Y. Schultz,
Relator,
vs.
Bartley Sales Company, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that
relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she
quit without a good reason caused by the employer. We affirm.

A06-204
City of Olivia,
Relator,
vs.
Renville County Board of Commissioners,
Respondent.
LANSING, Judge
The Renville County Board of Commissioners denied a petition to
remove part of the City of Olivia from land determined to be benefited
by the Renville County Ditch No. 66 Improvement. On certiorari appeal,
the city argues that the county board's denial cannot be sustained
because the city is no longer benefited by the drainage system and
because removing the city from the system would not prejudice the
property owners and property remaining within the system. Because the
county board acted within its administrative authority and did not err
as a matter of law by determining that the diversion of flood waters
away from the city constitutes a benefit to the city, we affirm.

A06-205
Jose H. Tori,
Appellant,
vs.
University of Minnesota,
Respondent.
WILLIS, Judge
Appellant sued respondent university for alleged violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ?? 12101-213 (2000); the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 794 (2000); and the Minnesota Human
Rights Act, Minn. Stat. ?? 363A.01-.40 (2004); claiming that respondent
denied his requests for a reasonable accommodation of his disabilities
and dismissed him because of his disabilities or in retaliation for his
requests for a reasonable accommodation. Appellant challenges the
district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent. Because we
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding
summary judgment and that the district court correctly applied the law,
we affirm.

A06-207
Scott Johnson,
Appellant,
vs.
Kraus-Anderson Construction Company,
Respondent.
PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment for respondent-contractor in a
dispute about roofing work on a building that appellant owns, appellant
argues that the district court (1) made findings that are not supported
by the record; (2) erred when it determined that appellant was not an
intended beneficiary of a contract between respondent and the previous
owner of the building; (3) erred when it held that appellant's claim was
barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. ? 541.051,
subd. 1(a) (2004); (4) misapplied Minn. Stat. ? 327A.03(a) (2004) to bar
appellant's warranty claim; and (5) erred in ruling that the building
was not a residential building for purposes of chapter 327A. We affirm.

A06-355
St. Louis Park Post No. 5632,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Incorporated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Appellant,
ASK Property Management, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
City of St. Louis Park,
Respondent.
WRIGHT, Judge
In this appeal from the district court's entry of summary
judgment in favor of respondent-city on appellant's challenge to
respondent's grant of a conditional use permit requiring that
appellant's billboard be removed, appellant argues that respondent (1)
misinterpreted and misapplied its ordinance; (2) acted unreasonably,
arbitrarily, and capriciously by neglecting to issue proper findings
supporting its decision; and (3) violated appellant's constitutional
rights. We affirm.

A06-406
Cindy Elofson,
Respondent,
vs.
Chisago County, et al.,
Appellants.
LANSING, Judge
The district court denied Chisago County's summary judgment
motion to dismiss, on official-immunity grounds, a former employee's
gender-discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Because the record supports the district court's determination that the
immunity claim presents genuine issues of material fact, we affirm the
denial of summary judgment.

A06-449
Daniel M. Hendrickson,
petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Daniel Ferrise, Warden,
Respondent.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Daniel M. Hendrickson, an inmate at the Minnesota
Correctional Facility-Stillwater, challenges an order denying his
petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the punishment he
received for sending a letter to another inmate violated his due process
and First Amendment rights. He further claims that the prison hearing
officer improperly applied a "some evidence" standard at his
disciplinary hearing. Because appellant failed to establish a prima
facie constitutional violation and because the hearing officer did not
erroneously apply a "some evidence" standard, we affirm.

A06-549
Janita A. Larson,
Relator,
vs.
Semcac,
Respondent,
RANDALL, Judge
Relator challenges the decision that her request for
reconsideration of the denial of unemployment benefits was untimely. We
affirm.

A06-758
In re the Marriage of:
Kenneth Robert Smigelsky, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Wendy Sue Smigelsky,
Appellant.
STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant wife challenges the property division in this
dissolution matter, asserting that the district court erred in (1)
determining that an investment account and an automobile were marital
property; (2) failing to consider a ,000 loan from wife's parents as
marital debt; (3) concluding that a credit-card debt incurred by
respondent husband after the parties' separation was a marital debt; and
(4) determining husband's net income for purposes of calculating child
support. We reverse the district court's determinations on the marital
character of the investment account, car, and credit-card debt, and the
award of an equitable offset for husband's labor against the loan from
wife's parents. Because the findings are inadequate for meaningful
review of the marital or non-marital character of that loan, husband's
credit-card debt, and calculation of husband's net income for
child-support, we remand for additional findings on those issues.
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 
          By visiting this page or clicking the
  "submit" button above, you agree
  that you have read and accept this   "disclaimer".
 
Copyright © Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights Reserved.
Minnesota Lawyer representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims.
Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance.