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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Angela M. Manderfeld,
Relator,

vs.

Amy Nelson,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
Angela Manderfeld appeals, by writ of certiorari, an
unemployment law judge's order disqualifying her from receiving
unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the
determination that Manderfeld quit her job, and no exceptions to
disqualification apply, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-784


In re the Minor Child E.S.J.L.

M.M. et al., co-petitioners,
Appellants,

S.C.-M. (Deceased), Co-petitioner,

vs.

J.M.J., f/k/a J.M.L.,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from the district court's order awarding
respondent-mother sole legal and physical custody, appellants-paternal
grandparents argue that (a) they had standing to seek custody after
making a prima facie case that they were de facto custodians and/or
interested third parties; (b) they made a prima facie case for
modification of custody based on integration and endangerment; (c) they
made a prima facie showing that awarding them sole physical custody is
in the child's best interest; (d) the district court should have
appointed a GAL for the child; and (e) the district court should have
recognized grandparents' status as joint legal custodians. We affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-647

Shari Mathena,
Respondent,

vs.

Allstate Insurance Company,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
This appeal arises out of the district court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of respondent Shari Mathena against her
underinsured motorist insurer, appellant Allstate Insurance Company.
Appellant argues that the district court erred (1) by determining that
it waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely intervene in
the underlying action between its insured and the tortfeasor; and (2) by
granting respondent interest accruing from the date of the arbitration
award. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-193

Printing Resources, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Robert Kartarik, d/b/a Kartarik Graphics and Printing,
defendant and third party plaintiff,
Respondent,

vs.

ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc.,
third party defendant,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant ECOsmarte Planet Friendly, Inc. challenges the
district court's legal conclusion that, as Robert Kartarik's principal,
it is responsible to pay the full balance on a contract for appellant's
benefit entered into between Kartarik and Printing Resources, Inc. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1341

In the Matter of the Welfare
of the Children of
K.H., P.N. and M.M., Parents.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
In this termination of parental rights case, appellant K.H.
claims that the evidence does not support termination of her parental
rights to her children, C.D. and C.H., under Minn. Stat. ? 260C.301,
subd. 1(b)(2), (5) (2004). Because we conclude that the evidence
supports both statutory bases for termination and that termination is in
the children's best interests, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-603

In re the Marriage of:
Jeffrey J. Pierson,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Janell H. Johnson,
Respondent,

and

Dakota County, intervenor,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Jeffrey Pierson challenges the district court's
adoption of a child support magistrate's decision that determined
respondent Janell Johnson owed child support arrears for the period from
December 2002 to the date of the order, but that arrears were not proven
for the period prior to December 2002. Because the magistrate failed to
make adequate findings to support its ultimate conclusions so as to
allow this court to properly review the matter, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-1493

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
S.M.K. and R.R.R., Parents.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order terminating her parental
rights, appellant-mother argues that the record does not support the
district court's determinations that she is palpably unfit, that she has
refused to comply with the duties of the parent-child relationship, and
that termination of her parental rights is in the child's best
interests. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1049

Terri Wittwer,
Appellant,

vs.

Enbridge, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,

Murphy Bros., Inc.,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's summary judgment
on all emotional-distress claims, restricting recovery in trespass to
property damage, and denying her motion to amend the complaint to
include a claim for invasion of privacy. Because the district court did
not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-254

Michael Faber,
Relator,

vs.

City of Crystal,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges a hearing officer's determination that
outdoor storage on his property is unlawful because he failed to apply
for a conditional use permit prior to the property's rezoning to a
residential classification in 2004. Since the city failed to present
any evidence that outdoor storage was improper prior to 1981 zoning
changes requiring a permit for such use, and because relator presented
uncontroverted evidence that outdoor storage has consistently existed on
the property since the 1950s, we reverse.

= = = =

A06-631

Dennis and Carmen Larrison,
as parents and natural guardians
of their son, Christopher Larrison,
Respondents,

vs.

John Marshall High School, et al.,
Appellants.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motion
for summary judgment. Appellants argue that (1) they are entitled to
vicarious official immunity because respondents' negligent-supervision
claim is based on a teacher's actions which conform with appellants'
attendance protocol, and (2) there are no issues of material fact
regarding the scope of appellants' attendance protocol. We reverse.

= = = =

A06-547

Shane Bakke,
Relator,

vs.

Ancient Arts Brick & Stone Masonry, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision
that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he
was discharged for employment misconduct for failing to sign a written
warning. Relator argues that (1) he was discharged from employment when
the employer called the police to have him removed from the premises;
(2) his failure to sign the warning was not based on insubordination but
was based on the fact that he had not been given the company policies
regarding mandatory overtime; (3) the ULJ did not give sufficient
consideration to the appeal because he made his decision the day after
the hearing; and (4) he should qualify for benefits because another ULJ
determined that another employee (relator's brother), who was discharged
under essentially identical circumstances, was qualified for benefits.
We affirm.

= = = =

A06-681

Wayne D. Shipley,
Appellant,

vs.

Independent School District 197
a/k/a Mendota Heights School District, et al.,
Respondents.

WRIGHT, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his claims
against respondents for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellant
argues that, because he does not challenge the nonrenewel of his
probationary employment, but rather is alleging that respondents
violated statutory obligations and school district policies, the
district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-514

In re the Marriage of:
Eric Thomas Amundson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Rachel Louise Amundson,
Respondent.


WRIGHT, Judge

Appellant-father challenges the district court's decision denying
appellant's request for sole physical custody of the parties' children
and setting appellant's child-support obligation at the guidelines
amount. Appellant argues that the district court erred when it (1)
determined that the parties' extrajudicial agreement was breached and
abandoned; (2) did not require the parties to participate in dispute
resolution; (3) overstated appellant's income; and (4) denied
appellant's motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing.
Because the district court erred in its calculation of appellant's
monthly net income for child-support purposes and failed to make express
findings regarding health-insurance coverage for the children as
required by Minn. Stat. ? 518.171, subd. 1(a) (2004), we reverse and
remand on these issues. As to the other issues raised in this appeal,
we affirm.
= = = =

A06-1073

Tom Vogel, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, et al.,
Respondents.


DIETZEN, Judge

Appellants challenge the district court order and resulting
judgment dismissing their claim, arguing that the district court erred
in finding that appellants did not specifically request homeowner's
insurance from respondent Larson, and in not making findings on
respondent's alleged failure to perform certain statutory obligations.
Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse
its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-242


In re the Marriage of:
Craig James Beuning, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Alessandra Lizabeth Beuning,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
On appeal in this child-support dispute, appellant argues
that (1) despite the fact that he has been released from the workhouse,
his appeal is not moot; (2) the district court's findings were
inadequate to justify his incarceration; (3) the district court
improperly denied him an opportunity to present evidence at the contempt
hearing; (4) the district court's ruling was internally inconsistent
regarding his work release from incarceration; (5) the district court
improperly used its civil contempt power to punish him for prior
purported misconduct; and (6) this court's prior refusal to address this
matter via a writ of habeas corpus was erroneous. We conclude that this
appeal is not moot, address the issues raised on their merits, and
reverse.

= = = =

A06-1398
A06-1487


In the Matter of the
Welfare of the Children of:
J.M.M. (A06-1487) and
K.L.M. (A06-1398),
Parents.


CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellants J.M.M. (father) and K.L.M. (mother) challenge the
district court's termination of their parental rights; the court applied
a presumption of palpable unfitness based on a prior involuntary
termination of parental rights, found that appellants failed to rebut
the presumption, and also found that termination was in the best
interests of the five children at issue. Because the record supports
the presumption and contains evidence sufficient to support the district
court's findings, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-516


In re the Marriage of:
Krista JoAnn Czech,
f/k/a Krista JoAnn Broberg, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Kevin Michael Czech,
Appellant.

CRIPPEN, Judge
In this property division dispute, appellant Kevin Czech
challenges the district court's implementation of the portion of the
divorce judgment relating to appellant's Federal Employee Retirement
System (FERS) benefits. Because the divorce judgment confirms the
district court's rationale in awarding respondent Krista Czech a share
of disability benefits, as well as normal retirement benefits, 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.