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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Jaclyn R. Mugge, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Alan I. Mugge,
Appellant.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant-husband Alan I. Mugge challenges the district
court's amended findings and order valuing and distributing his
business. Because the district court did not consider the value of
appellant's personal services to the business or include a key-person
discount, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-237

Patrick Murphy,
Appellant,

vs.

Superior National Bank, et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Patrick Murphy challenges the summary judgment
granted in favor of respondents Superior National Bank and its president
Cyrus Gray, Jr. The district court concluded that prior mortgage
foreclosure proceedings precluded this action for fraud and
breach-of-fiduciary duty against Superior National and Gray. Because
Murphy raised and could have fully litigated the issues of fraud and
breach-of-fiduciary duty in the foreclosure proceedings, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-247

Sean K. McGinity,
Relator,

vs.

The Minnesota Orchestral Association,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
This appeal is from a decision of an unemployment law judge
that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits
because he quit his employment and no exception from the rule that an
employee who quits is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits
applies to relator. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-179

Michael A. Chung,
Relator,

vs.

SMSC Gaming Enterprises,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
By writ of certiorari, pro se relator challenges the
decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was discharged
for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's
findings and those findings support the conclusion that relator was
discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-240

Andrew Barnes,
Appellant,

vs.

Derek Dees,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on the
emergency rule. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

= = = =

A06-505

Chester Creek Technologies, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

George H. Kessler,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
This appeal is from a judgment and order denying posttrial
motions in a case involving an insolvent corporation and its two primary
shareholders. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support respondent's claims of (1) promissory estoppel; (2) interference
with prospective advantage; and (3) unjust enrichment. Appellant also
claims that (4) respondent obtained double recovery for the same harm
when he was awarded damages for both interference with prospective
advantage and promissory estoppel; and (5) the jury instructions were
erroneous. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

= = = =

A06-487

Mate Precision Tooling,
Appellant,

vs.

Carrier Corporation,
Defendant,

NS/I Mechanical Contracting Company,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order denying
appellant leave to amend the complaint and granting summary judgment in
favor of respondent on appellant's breach-of-contract and negligence
claims. Appellant also argues that the district court erred by failing
to address appellant's motion to amend the scheduling order. We affirm.

= = = =


A06-903

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
L.H. and M.C., Parents.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this termination-of-parental-rights matter,
appellant-mother argues that the district court erred by (1) terminating
her parental rights involuntarily when she also petitioned to terminate
her parental rights voluntarily; and (2) terminating her parental rights
involuntarily while terminating respondent-father's parental rights
voluntarily. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-457

Shawn Davis, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Bernard Walter, defendant and third party plaintiff,
Appellant,

vs.

Paul Walter, et al., third party defendants,

Joseph Bartholomew, third party defendant,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge

This case involves Shawn Davis's fall from his father-in-law's
loft while Davis helped remove debris from the loft. A jury found that
Davis and his wife may recover damages in tort from his father-in-law,
Bernard Walter, after the district court dismissed Walter's claims
against three third-party defendants who were also helping him remove
the debris. On appeal from the denial of his alternative motion for
judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, Walter argues that the
evidence does not support the jury verdict because he did not owe a duty
to Davis and that Davis assumed all risk of any injury. Walter further
argues that the district court erred by refusing to give a jury
instruction on primary assumption of risk, by dismissing Walter's claims
against third-party defendant Joseph Bartholomew, and by admitting
improper evidence of habit. Because the record demonstrates that Walter
owed a duty to Davis and supports the legal determination that Davis did
not fully assume the risk of injury, and Walter has not established
grounds for a new trial, we affirm.

= = =

A05-2490

Jeffrey Kuberka,
Respondent,

vs.

Anoka Mediation, Inc., et al.,
Appellants.

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from an order denying summary judgment on grounds of
quasi-judicial immunity, Kathleen Brandvold and Anoka Mediation, Inc.,
argue that the district court erred by holding that immunity does not
preclude civil liability for Brandvold's conduct as a custody evaluator.
Because Jeffrey Kuberka alleged misconduct by Brandvold that occurred
before she became the custody evaluator, and because genuine issues of
material fact exist concerning whether she fraudulentlysecured the
position and whether she acted outside the scope of any proper court
appointment, we affirm
 

 
 
 

  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.