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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

John Tryggeseth,
Appellant,

vs.

Thermogas,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from a directed verdict on appellant's breach of
contract claim against respondent as to the award of damages, appellant
argues that the district court abused its discretion by (a) suppressing
untimely evidence and expert testimony regarding his damages; and (b)
denying his request for a continuance. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1663

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
J.A.C. and L.H.S., II, Parents

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from the district court's denial of
appellant-county's petition to transfer legal custody of the child to
the child's father, appellant-county argues that (a) the district court
erred in holding that under Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201, subd. 11 (Supp.
2005), it must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the conditions
that led to the child's out-of-home placement have been corrected; and
(b) the district court's findings that respondent-mother corrected the
conditions that led to the child's out-of-home placement are clearly
erroneous. We conclude that the evidence does not support the district
court's findings that respondent-mother corrected the conditions that
led to the child's out-of-home placement. We reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-595

Gordon Grannes, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Red Cedar of Yellow Medicine, Inc.,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
On appeal in this dispute over the ownership of a parcel of
land, appellants challenge the district court's determination that
respondent acquired the property by adverse possession, arguing that (1)
the evidence is insufficient to show the elements of continuous,
exclusive, and hostile possession for the required period; and (2) this
lawsuit is barred under the doctrines of judicial estoppel and res
judicata. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-747

Prairie Industrial Park, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Jeffry Lahr, et al.,
Appellants.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment that ownership of a vacated
street reverts to respondent, appellants argue that because they owned
the property abutting the street when it was vacated, they became the
owners of the vacated parcel. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-286

Dr. Wayne Earl Dahl,
Respondent,

vs.

City of Fridley,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
In this drainage-assessment dispute, the district court, based on
negligence occurring in what was an allegedly unrelated city project,
vacated the city's assessment of respondent property owner's land. On
appeal, the city argues that (1) the vacation was improper; and (2) the
district court erred when it determined that the statute of limitations
did not bar respondent's negligence claim. Because we conclude that
respondent was required to bring his negligence claim as an objection to
the special assessment and that respondent's negligence claim was not
barred by the statute of limitations, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1854

Robert A. Kunshier,
Appellant,

vs.

Cal Ludeman,
Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant challenges the Judicial Appeal Panel's denial of
his petition for provisional or conditional discharge from civil
commitment as a sexually dangerous person. Appellant argues that he
produced sufficient evidence to show that he met the statutory
requirements for provisional or full discharge pursuant to Minn. Stat. ?
253B.18, subds. 7, 15 (2004). Because the panel's findings are
reasonably supported by the evidence, and because appellant has not
provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for
provisional or full discharge, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-601


Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC, challenges the
unemployment law judge's decision that the respondent department had
jurisdiction to correct an erroneous succession determination and thus
to impose on relator the experience rating of its predecessor. Relator
also disputes the finding that it was a full successor of Kforce, Inc.,
its parent. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-814

Jon E. Bell,
Relator,

vs.

Anamax Transportation,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Jon Bell challenges the decision of the unemployment
law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct based on
excessive absences and arguing about scheduled work and routes. Finding
no merit in relator's assertion that arguing about alternate routes and
schedules does not constitute misconduct, we affirm.

= = = =

A05-2248


John E. Jaskowiak,
Relator,

vs.

CM Construction Company, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
This matter is before us on remand from the supreme court for
reconsideration of this court's decision in Jaskowiak v. CM Constr. Co.,
717 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. App. 2006). Respondent Department of Employment
and Economic Development (DEED) asserts that it provided relator John
Jaskowiak, who failed to participate in the evidentiary hearing in this
matter, with notice of how he could request a new evidentiary hearing
and that this court erroneously determined that the notice required by
statute should have been contained in the unemployment-law judge's
decision. In response to this court's order for supplemental briefing
on remand, DEED appended to its brief a notice that was sent to
Jaskowiak. Although the notice was not formally made a part of the
record on appeal, it now appears that notice was given, and we
accordingly vacate the instruction to provide notice to Jaskowiak. But
the record is still inadequate to permit us to evaluate the finding by
the unemployment-law judge that Jaskowiak failed to establish good cause
for missing the evidentiary hearing, and we conclude that a remand to
DEED is still required.
 

 
 
 

  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.