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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Linda J. Johnson,
Relator,

vs.

J.C. Penney Corporation Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Linda J. Johnson challenges the decision of the
unemployment law judge affirming Johnson's disqualification from
receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm in part and remand.

= = = =

A06-381

In re the Marriage of:
John David Walker, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Barbara Jean Walker,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment and from
an order amending findings and denying appellant-husband's motion for a
new trial, husband argues that (1) the record does not support the
district court's determination that funds that respondent-wife provided
to make the down payment on the parties' homestead were not a gift from
wife to husband; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it
subtracted from his share of the marital interest in the homestead
equity the amount needed to pay the remaining balance of the
second-mortgage loan; and (3) the district court abused its discretion
when it awarded him only ,000 in additional marital property, rather
than awarding him spousal maintenance. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2525

In re the Marriage of:
Wayne Charles Sing, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Peggy Sue Sing,
Appellant.

PETERSON, Judge
On appeal in this dissolution dispute, appellant-wife argues
that the district court erred in (1) concluding that respondent-husband
had a nonmarital interest in property that he bought before the
marriage; (2) valuing the property and awarding it to husband; and (3)
declining to award wife maintenance and conduct-based attorney fees. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1494
A06-1495


In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
J.E.B. and R.D.B., Jr., Parents.

WILLIS, Judge
In these consolidated termination-of-parental-rights appeals,
mother argues that (1) the petition to terminate her parental rights was
untimely because it was filed after the permanency deadline, or, in the
alternative, mother and the child's placement in full-family foster care
suspended the running of the permanency deadline; (2) the district court
erred by applying a presumption of palpable unfitness because the
transfer of custody of two of mother's older children was voluntary and
because the county failed to file the petition within the statutory time
limitation after those transfers; (3) the record does not otherwise show
mother to be unfit; (4) the district court overemphasized father's
history of sexual abuse when addressing termination of mother's parental
rights; and (5) the record does not show it to be in the child's best
interests to terminate mother's parental rights. Father argues that (1)
because father was complying with the relevant portions of his case
plan, he was not a palpably unfit parent; and (2) clear and convincing
evidence does not support the district court's determination that
conditions leading to the child's out-of-home placement had not been
corrected. We affirm.

= = = =
A06-652

M. Edward Nicholson,
Respondent,

vs.

University of Minnesota Federal Credit Union,
defendant and third party plaintiff,
Appellant,

vs.

Paul E. McQuaid,
Third Party Defendant.

WILLIS, Judge
On appeal from summary judgment in this commercial-lease
dispute, appellant argues that the district court erred as a matter of
law when it declined to order rescission. Appellant claims that
rescission is appropriate because (1) the lease was executed as a result
of a mutual mistake, (2) the lease was executed as a result of a
unilateral mistake, (3) the purpose of the lease was frustrated, and (4)
respondent materially breached the lease. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1621

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Darrin Scott Rick.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order committing
him indeterminately to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually
dangerous person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to find him
to be a sexually dangerous person and that he proved a less-restrictive
treatment alternative is available. Because the evidence is sufficient
to support the sexually dangerous person finding, and because appellant
failed to prove a less-restrictive treatment alternative is available,
we affirm.

= = = =

A06-621

Travelers Commercial Casualty Company,
Respondent,

vs.

Daniel Morales, et al.,
Defendants,
Railroad Salvage & Restoration, Inc.,
Appellant.

STONEBURNER, Judge

In this declaratory-judgment action, appellant-insured
challenges summary judgment granted to respondent-insurer, arguing that
the district court erred in determining that, as a matter of law,
exclusions in a workers' compensation policy precluded coverage for
appellant's employee, who was allegedly injured in Minnesota. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-140

Oneka Lake Development Co., LLC,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Hugo,
Respondent.



STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant argues that the district court erred in holding
that respondent city complied with Minn. Stat. ? 15.99 (2006) when it
denied appellant's application for an amendment to the city's
comprehensive plan. Appellant argues that respondent's procedure was
inadequate to effectively deny the application within the statutory
60-day period and that the application should be approved by operation
of law. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1331

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: T.R.K. and J.C.K.,
Parents.


MINGE, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's termination of her
parental rights, claiming that the district court's findings were
clearly erroneous. Because we conclude that the district court's
finding on at least one statutory basis for termination is supported by
clear and convincing evidence and is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1052

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of
K.C.W and D.W., Parents

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from an order terminating his parental rights to his
son, D.W. argues that the record does not support the district court's
findings that he failed to abide by the duties of the parent-child
relationship, he failed to correct the conditions leading to his son's
out-of-home placement, and his son had been neglected and in foster
care. He further argues that the county failed to make reasonable
efforts toward reunification and unilaterally terminated its services to
D.W. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district
court's findings that three statutory grounds justify terminating D.W.'s
parental rights, and because the department made reasonable efforts
toward reunification, 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.