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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Effie Patterson,
Relator,
vs.
Edgewood Management Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ)
determination that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits due to employee misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ
properly applied the law and that the ULJ's determination is supported
by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm.

A06-98
In re the Marriage of:
Pamela Jean Hoppe, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Kevin Dean Hoppe,
Appellant,
County of Anoka, intervenor,
Respondent.
WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this child-support contempt proceeding, appellant
argues that, without determining or imputing his current income, the
district court erred by (1) denying his motion to modify his
child-support obligation, and (2) executing his contempt sentence absent
support for the findings that his failure to comply with the purge
conditions was willful and that he had the ability to satisfy the purge
conditions, and incarceration was likely to produce compliance. We
affirm.

A06-159
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Bloomington, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Bloomington Professional Building, LLC, et al.,
Appellants,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al.,
Respondents Below.
RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from the district court's grant of a quick-take
condemnation order, appellant property owners argue that the HRA
exceeded its power to take private property, took private property that
was not "blighted" for a nonpublic purpose and took property that was
not necessary. Additionally, appellants argue that the HRA failed to
show a quick-take was necessary. We find the HRA acted within its
authority and the district court properly exercised its discretion. We
affirm.

A06-284
Samuel M. Post, III,
Relator,
vs.
Plaza Management Company, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
WILLIS, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of the
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) affirming his earlier determination that
relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because
relator was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator argues that
(1) his conduct was not intentional or deliberate and therefore does not
constitute misconduct; (2) the evidence does not support the
determination that he acted in an insubordinate or aggressive manner;
(3) his conduct was a single incident that did not have a significant
adverse impact on the employer; and (4) he was not given the opportunity
at the hearing to question the employer about an alleged disciplinary
warning of which he was unaware. Because substantial evidence supports
the ULJ's determination of misconduct, we affirm.

A06-513
Gesell Concrete Products, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,
vs.
David L. Anderson, et al.,
Appellants,
James R. Pulford, et al.,
Defendants.
WILLIS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's determination on
summary judgment that respondent has a valid leasehold interest in
appellant's property. Appellants argue that the lease violates Minn.
Stat. sec. 500.245, subd. 1 (2006), because appellant David L. Anderson
was not offered the right of first refusal to lease the property as
required by the statute. Because we conclude that the lease violates
the statute, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

A06-638
In the Matter of the Truck Rental Rate Effective December 20, 2004
WORKE, Judge
Relators are more than one dozen trucking firms. They appeal
from an order of respondent Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
(DOLI) upholding the certification of truck rental rates, operating
costs, and broker fees. Relators argue that the Commissioner of Labor
and Industry violated Minn. R. 5200.1105 (2005) by basing truck rental
rates, operating costs, and broker fees on a survey of over 10,000 firms
and individuals rather than data obtained from "at least five trucking
firms of various size and five independent truck owner operators, all
selected by the commissioner as representative of the industry" and then
averaging their itemized costs. In the alternative, relators argue that
the commissioner erred by refusing to disclose the names of the prime
contractors who submitted the surveys upon which the truck rental rates,
operating costs, and broker fees were based. Relators also argue that
the commissioner exceeded the scope of Minn. Stat. sec. 177.41 (2004)
and Minn. R. 5200.1000 (2005) by determining rental rates, operating
costs, and broker fees for trailers and tractor-trailers; failing to
determine or certify truck rental rates, operating costs, and broker
fees that are representative of the industry; and determining rates,
costs, and fees statewide rather than area-wide. Additionally, relators
argue that the commissioner violated Minn. Stat. sec. 177.44, subd. 3
(2004), by determining rental rates, operating costs, and broker fees
for trucks and trailers without considering the "nature of the equipment
furnished[,]" and erred by not resolving relators' claim that the
commissioner failed to consider the nature of the equipment furnished
with respect to trucks. Finally, relators argue that the commissioner
violated the United States and Minnesota Constitutions by certifying
rates, costs, and fees that impair existing contracts. We affirm.

A06-774
David P. Peterson,
Appellant,
vs.
MCF-Faribault,
Respondent.
HUDSON, Judge
Appellant David P. Peterson challenges the district court's
order granting summary judgment and dismissing as frivolous his claim
that the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Faribault ("MCF-FRB")
improperly deducted from his inmate account in order to pay a cost of
his confinement. Because the district court properly found that no
issue of material fact existed, it did not err in dismissing appellant's
claim with prejudice. We affirm.

A06-1051
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of B. T., Parent
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant B.T. challenges the district court's findings that it
is in the best interests of her sons for her parental rights to be
terminated. Because these findings are supported by substantial
evidence and are not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

A06-1452
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Daniel Harry Peria.
HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from the district court's order for indeterminate
civil commitment, appellant claims that the district court erred in
determining that he is a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and that he has
a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and by denying appellant
intensive supervised release (ISR) as a less-restrictive alternative.
We affirm.

A06-1620
Joseph D. Thornblad,
Appellant,
vs.
Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Joseph D. Thornblad, who is committed for an
indeterminate period as mentally ill and dangerous, challenges the
decision of the judicial appeal panel dismissing his petition for
discharge or for transfer to a non-secure facility. He also moved to
strike the appendix of respondent Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of Human
Services, as containing items not part of the record below. Because the
panel correctly applied the law and concluded that appellant had not met
his burden of going forward, we affirm. Because appellant did not
support his motion with any legal analysis, facts, or citations, we deny
the motion.
 

 
 
 

  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.