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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Jerold O. Nelson,
Appellant,

vs.

Douglas J. Nill,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant, attorney Jerold O. Nelson, challenges the
district court's grant of summary judgment in his action to enforce the
terms of a written agreement he entered into with respondent, attorney
Douglas J. Nill. Because their agreement is ambiguous and reasonably
susceptible to more than one interpretation, we conclude that genuine
issues of material fact remain unresolved, and the district court erred
by granting summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-340

In re the Marriage of:
Julie Marie Miller, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Gary Lee Miller,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
In this appeal from a dissolution judgment, appellant wife
challenges her spousal-maintenance award and argues also that the
district court abused its discretion when it allowed respondent husband
to testify regarding the present value of husband's insurance agency and
when it adopted that value in its findings of fact. Both parties
challenge the district court's treatment of husband's insurance agency
in its property division. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1567


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Benjamin James Alverson.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's judgment
committing him as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual
psychopathic personality (SPP), arguing that (1) the evidence is
insufficient to support a finding that he is an SDP or an SPP; (2) the
district court is precluded from finding clear and convincing evidence
to support a conclusion that appellant is either an SDP or an SPP when
less than a year earlier the district court dismissed a civil-commitment
petition related to appellant and when appellant has allegedly committed
no new sex offenses since that time; and (3) the SDP and SPP statutes
authorizing civil commitment violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
federal Constitution. Because clear and convincing evidence supports
appellant's commitment as an SDP and an SPP and because the applicable
statutes are not unconstitutional, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-645

Rachel Goetzmann, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Domestic Development, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,

and

Domestic Development, Inc.,
defendant and third-party plaintiff,
Appellant,

vs.

Bill Ratzlaff, individually and d/b/a Bill's Stucco Service,
third party defendant,
Respondent,

Scott King, individually and d/b/a L & S Construction,
third party defendant,
Respondent,

C. H. Carpenter Lumber,
third party defendant,
Respondent,

Westurn Cedar Supply & Roofing,
third party defendant,
Respondent,

Schield Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Vetter Windows and Doors,
Third Party Defendant.

LBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary
judgment to respondents on the grounds that the district court erred in
its determination that appellant's settlement agreement with the
Goetzmanns is a Pierringer release that eliminated appellant's
third-party claims against respondents and that appellant's claims are
time-barred by operation of Minn. Stat. ? 541.051 (2002). Because we
conclude that the district court did not err, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-614

Robert Klover,
Relator,

vs.

Independent School District #834,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ)
determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because
we conclude that the ULJ's finding that relator's misrepresentations on
his employment applications were the reason for his discharge, and the
finding that those misrepresentations constitute employment misconduct
are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

= = = =

A05-2573

In re the Marriage of: Patricia JoAnn Renard, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Ronald Allen Renard,
Appellant.

MINGE, Judge

Appellant-husband argues that the district court abused its
discretion: (1) by ordering him to pay permanent spousal maintenance;
(2) in calculating his income and expenses and determining child
support; (3) in allocating marital debt; (4) in making its custody
determination; and (5) by denying his motion for a new trial. Because
the record does not establish that the district court abused its
discretion in awarding permanent spousal maintenance, calculating
appellant's income, making its custody determination, or denying
appellant's motion for a new trial, we affirm on those issues. But
because the district court failed to consider a federal benefit for a
child and did not properly determine excess income in determining the
amount of spousal maintenance and making the child support award, and
erred in the allocation of a portion of the parties' marital debt, we
reverse and remand those portions of the decision.
= = = =

A06-461

Dale Nathan,
Appellant,

vs.

Town Centre Self Storage, LLC,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal. Appellant sued
respondent, from which he rented a storage cubicle, after the respondent
charged him late fees, contending that the late fees were illegal
penalties and inappropriate liquidated damages. After respondent waived
all late fees and gave notice that the rental agreement would be
terminated, the district court declared the suit moot and dismissed it.
Appellant argues that (1) he suffered damages as a result of the
contract termination; (2) factual issues remain as to whether
respondent's termination of its contract was retaliatory; and (3) the
district court made a number of procedural errors. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-754

Raymond T. He,
Relator,

vs.

Cypress Semiconductor, (Minnesota) Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge
affirming on reconsideration his earlier decision that relator was
discharged for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified
from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1596

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:

L.D. and J.C., Parents.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant guardian ad litem (GAL) challenges the district
court order dismissing a petition that J.C. and J.D. were children in
need of protection or services, arguing that the district court (1)
failed to consider the statutory criteria alleged under Minn. Stat. ?
260C.007, subd. 6; (2) erred by not concluding that the children were in
need of protection or services; and (3) clearly erred by finding that
the parent had substantially complied with the case plan. Because the
court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1304

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:

N.M., Parent.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from a Children in Need of Protection or Services
(CHIPS) determination, appellant argues that (1) neither the findings
nor the record supports the adjudication that the children are in need
of protection or services because the children's environment is
dangerous to the children; (2) neither the findings nor the record
supports the district court's dispositional orders; and (3) the district
court abused its discretion by adopting the county's proposed findings
verbatim. We affirm.


= = = =

A06-1609
A06-1635


In the Matter of the
Welfare of the Children of:
C.R.P. and Y.P.,
Parents.

CRIPPEN, Judge
In these consolidated appeals of each parent from the
district court's termination of their parental rights, the parents argue
that the record does not support the court's findings that they are
palpably unfit to parent, that reasonable efforts failed to correct
harmful conditions, and that termination of their rights is in the
children's best interests. Having found evidence of record that is
sufficient to support the district court's findings, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-106


Deeanne M. Carlson,
Appellant,

vs.

Richard F. Riemenschneider, DDS,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Deeanne Carlson appeals from the district court's denial of
a new trial in an action for dental malpractice. Appellant disputes the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding that
respondent Richard F. Riemenschneider, DDS, was not negligent in the
treatment he provided to her, and she contends that the district court
improperly excluded evidence from earlier Minnesota Board of Dentistry
proceedings and from prior malpractice lawsuits. Appellant also
disputes the jury's zero-damages determination and the district court's
refusal to allow a punitive-damages claim. Because the record permits
the jury's verdict and because the district court did not abuse its
broad discretion in excluding evidence, we affirm. Other contentions of
appellant are also without merit.

= = = =

A06-1180


In re the Marriage of:
Lisa Kegler Shea, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Richard Arthur Shea,
Appellant.

HUSPENI, Judge
In seeking review of several decisions of the district court in a
dissolution judgment, appellant challenges (a) the spousal maintenance
award, claiming that the record does not support the duration or amount
of the award or its designation as permanent; (b) the valuation of the
parties' property because the district court selected multiple valuation
dates without adequate explanation and awarded respondent a share of the
increase in the value of certain assets occurring after the parties'
separation; (c) the requirement that appellant pay all of the children's
uninsured medical expenses, and the award to respondent of certain tax
deductions and exemptions; (d) the failure of the district court to
grant appellant sole legal and physical custody of the children; and (e)
the parenting-time schedule established by the district court. Because
evidence in the record supports each of the contested decisions of the
district court, and because there was no abuse of discretion in those
decisions, 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.