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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS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: Jeremy Allan Lund


TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
On appeal from an order for his indeterminate commitment as a
sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality,
appellant Jeremy Allan Lund argues that the evidence does not establish
clearly and convincingly that he is highly likely to engage in future
acts of harmful sexual conduct or that he has an utter lack of power to
control his sexual impulses. Because the trial court's findings are not
clearly erroneous, are supported by the record, and satisfy the criteria
for civil commitment, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-776


Lenord E. Marquardt,
Appellant,

vs.

Charles Wilkinson, D.D.S., et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Lenord E. Marquardt challenges the district
court's dismissal of his dental-negligence claim under Minn. Stat. ?
145.682 (2006) for non-compliance with the statute's expert-witness
disclosure requirements. Because appellant's position on appeal is
inconsistent with his petition before the district court and because his
disclosures fail to satisfy the requirements of Minn. Stat. ? 145.682,
we affirm.

= = = =

A06-762

Lisa Jones,
Relator,

vs.

Contemporary Transportation,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
Pro se relator Lisa Jones challenges the decision by an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without good
reason caused by the employer. Because the ULJ's findings are supported
by substantial evidence and the ULJ's decision is not affected by error
of law, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-709

David M. Hase,
Relator,

vs.

Creative Woodcuts, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
By writ of certiorari, pro se relator challenges the
decision of the unemployment-law judge that relator quit his employment
and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-760

Randy Johnson, et al, petitioners,
Appellants,

vs.

Randy Newbold, et al.,
Respondents.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's judgment
confirming an arbitration award, arguing that the district court
improperly modified the award. Appellants also argue that the district
court erred by reserving claims for damages arising from the judgment.
Because the district court properly construed the arbitration award in
converting it into an enforceable judgment, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-181

In re the Marriage of:
Leoniede M. Brennan, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

William A. Braun,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
In this post-dissolution matter, pro se appellant challenges
the district court's denial of his motion to modify the parenting
schedule. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-789

Michelle E. Jorgensen
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge

Relator challenges the method used by respondent Department
of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) to allocate income she
received for coaching and for substitute teaching, which she asserts
resulted in an overstatement of unemployment benefits that she was
overpaid during the time she was coaching and substitute teaching.
Because the record does not support DEED's determination that relator
earned the coaching income in equal weekly amounts during the coaching
season, we reverse and remand for recalculation of her benefits and
overpayment.

= = = =

A06-424

Bashir Moghul,
Relator,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges respondent
city's decision to demolish a building that he owns, arguing that the
city failed to exercise any discretion and that its decision was
arbitrary, capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and made
on unlawful procedure. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-532

In re the Marriage of:

Sharon Ann Kimball, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Barney Edward Kimball,
Appellant.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the denial of appellant's motion to modify
his spousal-maintenance obligation upon his retirement, appellant argues
that (1) his retirement constituted a substantial change in
circumstances justifying a modification; (2) a correct application of
the factors described in Richards v. Richards, 472 N.W.2d 162, 165
(Minn. App. 1991), shows that the findings that appellant retired in bad
faith and is voluntarily unemployed are unsupported by the record; and
(3) the record does not otherwise show bad faith by appellant. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-215

John Wesley Hebert, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

City of Fifty Lakes,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge

On appeal from the dismissal of appellants' declaratory judgment
action seeking damages for trespass and ejectment of respondent from a
portion of their registered Torrens property, upon which respondent
encroached when it laid a gravel road in 1971 that deviated from the
platted road, appellants argue that (1) the district court erred in
dismissing their claims because respondent is a mere trespasser and its
purported adverse possession of Torrens property can never ripen into
title, (2) respondent never properly invoked its power of eminent domain
by initiating condemnation proceedings, and (3) respondent's action did
not constitute a de facto taking. Respondent counters that its action
constituted a de facto taking rather than a tortious trespass or adverse
possession. Because we find that the nature of respondent's
encroachment under the facts and circumstances of this case is more akin
to a temporary intrusion onto appellants' property, we hold that a de
facto taking did not take place, and we reverse and remand to the
district court for further proceedings.
 

 
 
 

  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.