| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSIn the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brandon-le Douglas OlsonTOUSSAINT, Chief Judge On appeal from the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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
