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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Joel C. Jack, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Richard Horman, et al., defendants and third party plaintiffs,
Appellants,

Corey Loger, et al.,
Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

Rick Ruprecht, et al., third party defendants,
Respondents.


LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment dismissing a
third-party action arising from a contingent agreement for the purchase
of real estate, the sellers argue that they have presented sufficient
evidence to create genuine issues of material fact on their claims
against their real-estate agent and his employer for breach of contract,
tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with
prospective advantage. We affirm because the sellers have not
established any genuine issues of material fact on their third-party
action and the district court did not err in its determination on their
remaining claims related to sanctions, reconsideration, earnest money,
and removal of the assigned judge.

= = = =

A06-571

In the Matter of Lorraine Daniels for the Establishment of
a Cartway in Glenwood Township, Pope County, Minnesota.


KALITOWSKI, Judge
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment order
allowing respondent Glenwood Township to establish a cartway over the
land of appellants Robert and Harriet Tholen pursuant to a petition for
cartway filed by adjacent property owner Lorraine Daniels. Appellants
argue that the cartway should not be established because (1) Daniels
already has access to her land over adjoining property and has failed to
exhaust other viable legal remedies; (2) cartways should not be
established for the benefit of third parties or for a petitioner that
landlocked herself; and (3) the granting of the cartway is an improper
taking because it does not have a public purpose. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-593

Ricky Joe Artz,
Appellant,

vs.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty
Insurance Co.,
Respondent.


KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Ricky Joe Artz brought this declaratory judgment
against respondent Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., after
respondent denied coverage for appellant's claim that his ex-wife's
removal of marital and nonmarital property from the marital homestead
constituted theft. The district court granted respondent's motion for
summary judgment, concluding that it was against public policy to settle
marital property disputes by resorting to filing an insurance claim.
Because appellant has failed to make a prima facie case of theft, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-550

William David Byrne,
Appellant,

vs.

Terry Kropp,
Respondent,

Bryce Bjork,
Respondent.


KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant William David Byrne slipped and fell while
attempting to walk up the sloped apron of a driveway that serviced two
multi-family dwellings in Rochester. The two properties, including the
shared driveway, are owned by respondents Terry Kropp and Bryce Bjork.
Because appellant's fall occurred on the city's right-of-way and because
appellant could show no causal link between appellant's fall and
respondents' snow and ice removal activities in the area, appellant
failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. We therefore
affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents.

= = = =

A06-469


Joseph W. Fisher,
Relator,

vs.

Bayport Marina Association,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.


KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Joseph W. Fisher challenges a decision by an
unemployment law judge (ULJ), affirming the ULJ's earlier decision that
relator quit his job without good reason caused by his employer,
respondent Bayport Marina Association. Relator argues that he had good
reason to quit because his employer failed to provide him with a trained
assistant or spotter at all times, which raised safety concerns.
Because the evidence supports the ULJ's determination that
the employer provided relator with an assistant when requested and that
relator failed to properly make use of that assistant, particularly
during the final incident during which relator decided to walk away from
his job rather than ask for help, we agree that relator quit his job
without good reason caused by his employer. We therefore affirm the
ULJ's determination that relator is disqualified from receiving
benefits.

= = = =

A06-97

In re: Trust Agreement
of Robert G. Sudheimer,
Dated August 3, 2000.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellants, three beneficiaries of the trust of Robert G.
Sudheimer, successfully brought suit against Sudheimer's widow, Mary Ann
Sudheimer, the named personal representative in Sudheimer's will and
named trustee of the trust, for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion
of trust assets. They now challenge the district court's posttrial
order directing apportionment of estate taxes under Minn. Stat. ?
524.3-916 (2004), and refusing to award them attorney fees from the
estate under Minn. Stat. ? 524.3-720 (2004). Because we observe no
error in the district court's decision to determine estate tax
apportionment by reference to Minn. Stat. ? 524.3-916, when Sudheimer's
will and trust contained conflicting and irreconcilable provisions on
estate tax apportionment, we affirm on that issue. But because the
district court abused its discretion by refusing to award attorney fees
to appellants consistent with the provisions of Minn. Stat. ? 524.3-720,
when they successfully maintained an action against the personal
representative and trustee that resulted in a benefit to the estate, we
reverse and remand for further proceedings on that issue.

= = = =

A06-202

Laura L. Goodman,
Relator,

vs.

City of Brooklyn Center,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Relator appeals by writ of certiorari from the decision of
the unemployment-law judge that relator quit her employment without good
reason caused by her employer and that, consequently, she is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2492

Elizabeth L. Proudfoot,
Relator,

vs.

Wellbridge Club Management, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

UMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision
disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the
judge erred by finding that she quit without good reason caused by the
employer, and that the judge conducted the hearing improperly. Because
we find that the unemployment law judge did not err by finding that
relator quit her job without good reason caused by the employer, and
that there was no impropriety in the hearing, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-702

Todd Sutton, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

The Town Board of the Town of Princeton,
County of Mille Lacs, State of Minnesota;
Greg Anderson, Steve Heinks, Dan Minks,
Stephanie Johnston and John Moosbrugger,
constituting the members of said Board,
Appellant.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant township challenges the district court's order
granting respondent landowners' petition for peremptory writ of mandamus
approving landowners' preliminary plat application, arguing that
approval is not a clear duty imposed by law and that denial was
supported by the record. Because approval of a preliminary plat
application is not a clear duty imposed by law, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-612

Cina M. Buck,
Relator,

vs.

Bergquist Company,
Respondent,

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator Cina Buck challenges the order affirming the
unemployment law judge's (ULJ) conclusion that relator was disqualified
from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her job without
good reason caused by her employer. Because the record reasonably
supports the ULJ's conclusion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-594

In re the Marriage of:
Holly Lynn Benda ReMine, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Gary Craig ReMine,
Respondent,

and

County of Olmsted, intervenor,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge

In this child-support-modification dispute in which
respondent-father's childsupport obligation was set below the
guidelines amount, appellant-mother argues that the child-support
magistrate (CSM) clearly erred by understating respondent-father's net
income, understating appellant-mother's expenses, and ordering
appellant-mother to provide the children's medical and dental
insurance. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-637


Marcie M. Cotter,
Relator,

vs.

Anderson Fabrics, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
Relator was denied unemployment benefits by the Department
of Employment and Economic Development, and that denial was affirmed
after a hearing before an unemployment law judge (ULJ). Cotter sought
reconsideration, and the ULJ again affirmed the denial of benefits.
Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Cotter quit
her job and that no exceptions to disqualification apply, we affirm.

= = = =

A05-2166


John K. Meikle, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Brenda K. Winner-Hite Meikle,
Appellant.

HUSPENI, Judge
In this appeal challenging an order granting attorney fees
and travel costs arising from a parenting-time dispute, appellant argues
that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
child-custody issues and therefore could not have assessed fees and
costs for appellant's failure to abide by an order issued in the
parties' parenting-time dispute. Because we find that the order of the
district court regarding attorney fees and travel costs arose from a
parenting-time dispute over which the district court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction, we reverse.


 

 
 
 

  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.