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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brandon-le Douglas Olson

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
On appeal from the district court's order for his indeterminate
commitment as a sexually dangerous person, appellant Brandon-le Douglas
Olson challenges the district court's findings that he is highly likely
to reoffend and is unable to adequately control his sexual impulses and
the district court's conclusion that no less-restrictive treatment than
the Minnesota Sex Offender Program was appropriate or available.
Because we see no error in the court's findings or conclusions, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1947


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Richard Russell Fageroos.

LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from an order for civil commitment as a
sexually dangerous person, Richard Fageroos challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his commitment, his placement at the
Minnesota Security Hospital, and the admissibility of an expert's report
and a witness's supplementary testimony. Because the district court's
commitment orders are supported by clear and convincing evidence;
because Fageroos failed to demonstrate the availability of a suitable,
less-restrictive treatment program; and because Fageroos's evidentiary
challenges were not preserved for appeal and do not provide a basis for
reversal, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-748

In re the Marriage of:

Eileen Walsh Doyle, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Joseph William Doyle,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Joseph William Doyle argues that the district
court abused its discretion by denying his motion to modify the spousal
maintenance provision of his marital dissolution judgment and decree.
We affirm.

= = = =

A06-394

VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc.,
d/b/a T-Mobile, a Delaware corporation,
Respondent,

vs.

RPC Properties, Inc.,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant RPC Properties, Inc., made a motion to the
district court seeking enforcement of a settlement agreement and
requesting attorney fees and consequential damages. The district court
granted the motion, awarded attorney fees and costs, but did not grant
appellant's request for consequential damages. Appellant now challenges
(1) the adequacy of the district court's order because it does not
expressly state its reasoning for denying consequential damages; (2) the
district court's denial of appellant's request for an additional
evidentiary hearing; and (3) the denial of a consequential damages
award. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1442

In re the Marriage of:
Stephen John Navin,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Christina Marie Navin,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Stephen John Navin and respondent Christina Marie
Navin lived together for ten years before they were married in February
2001. They have three children, two of whom were born before the
marriage. When respondent moved out of the parties' home in November
2003, the children were 10, 8, and 2 years old. A judgment and decree
of dissolution was entered in December 2005, based on the record
compiled during a four-day trial.
On appeal from the district court's denial of his posttrial
motions for amended findings or a new trial, appellant challenges the
district court's (1) award to respondent of sole physical custody of the
children; (2) denial of his request for an updated custody evaluation;
(3) refusal to give him access to statements made by the two older
children to the custody evaluator regarding their preferences; (4)
alteration of the parenting time schedule that was followed and used by
the parties before trial; (5) distribution to appellant of all of his
credit card debt; and (6) award to respondent of a substantial portion
of his nonmarital interest in the homestead. Because the district
court's findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and because
those findings adequately support the court's conclusions of law and its
exercise of discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-442

Anthony John Van Dyck, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Tiffany Nicole Van Dyck Snidarich,
Respondent.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court order granting
respondent's motion to modify parenting time, arguing that the district
court abused its discretion in (1) granting respondent's motion to
relocate within the state contrary to the provisions of the agreement of
the parties as adopted in the judgment and decree; (2) restricting
appellant's parenting time schedule; and (3) not holding an evidentiary
hearing. 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.