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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS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 Welfare of the Children of: R.A.T. and J.T.,
Parents

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
In this child-placement appeal arising after a termination
of parental rights, appellant M.T.G., the children's maternal
grandmother, argues that the district court failed to give her a
statutory preference to be the children's custodian and that the record
lacks evidence to rebut that statutory preference. We affirm the
district court's treatment of the statutory custody preference but
reverse its rejection of grandmother as a potential custodian and remand
for further proceedings.

= = = =

A06-695

Dee Marie Duckwall, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Adam Andrew Duckwall,
Appellant.

RANDALL, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district court's modification of
parenting time without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argues that
the record, containing respondent-mother's hearsay-laden affidavit, does
not establish the changed circumstances or evidence necessary to modify
parenting time; and further, that the district court improperly limited
appellant's ability to lift the restrictions on his parenting time. We
reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

= = = =

A06-2078

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kevin Arnell Banks, Jr.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Kevin Arnell Banks, Jr. challenges the district
court's decision that he is mentally ill and dangerous on the grounds
that: (1) he is not substantially likely to engage in acts capable of
inflicting serious physical harm on another; and (2) the district court
failed to adequately consider less restrictive alternatives to the
secured hospital. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-665

Melany Marie Gold, individually
and on behalf of her children,
petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Justin Everett Larsen,
Appellant.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
In this appeal from a district court order extending for
another year an order for protection (OFP) that had been in effect from
January 10, 2005, to January 10, 2006, appellant Justin Everett Larsen
argues that (1) the district court failed to make adequate findings of
fact to support extending the OFP; (2) the district court's extension of
the OFP with regard to appellant's four children is unsupported by the
findings or the record; and (3) the district court unnecessarily
continued restrictions on his parenting time with the children. Because
we conclude that the factual record and the district court's findings
based on that record support its decision to extend the OFP and restrict
appellant's parenting time, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-777

Bradley Operating Limited Partnership,
Respondent,

vs.

RadioShack Corporation, f/k/a Tandy Corporation,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of its
motion for summary judgment and the district court's granting of
respondent's summary-judgment motion on the ground that the district
court erred by concluding that the lease provisions require appellant to
pay the fixed minimum rent during the first three years of the renewal
option periods. Because we conclude that the district court did not
err, we affirm.
= = = =

A06-2044

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Anthony Bruce Eberhardt.

STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous
person (SDP) and sexual psychopathic personality (SPP), asserting that
collateral estoppel should have barred the commitment proceeding, there
is not clear and convincing evidence to support the finding that he
meets the criteria of SDP and SPP, and his commitment violates his
double-jeopardy and due-process rights. Because appellant's
collateral-estoppel and constitutional challenges lack merit and there
is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support his
commitment, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-243

In re the Marriage of:

Andrea Dore Trimble Hart,
f/k/a Andrea Dore Trimble,
Andrea Dore Clark, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Darrell Bradford Hart,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
In this marriage-dissolution proceeding, appellant
challenges the district court's property distribution arguing that the
district court abused its discretion because it (1) made no specific
finding that appellant inappropriately transferred or encumbered marital
assets under Minn. Stat. ? 518.58, subd. 1a (2004); (2) incorrectly
valued the parties' 2004 income-tax refund; and (3) improperly
double-counted certain assets. Because the district court did not abuse
its discretion by distributing the marital estate as it did, but clearly
erred in computing the value of the parties' 2004 income-tax refund, we
affirm as modified. Further, we grant appellant's motion to strike
portions of respondent's brief and appendix.

= = ==

A06-1347

In re the Marriage of:

Curtis D. Hansen, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Dayna L. Hansen,
Appellant.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant-mother challenges the district court's dissolution
judgment and decree, which, inter alia, awarded temporary sole legal
custody and permanent sole physical custody of the parties' child to
respondent-father, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
by (1) allowing extensions of the original custody evaluation and not
ordering a second custody evaluation, (2) neglecting this case and
allowing bias to influence the outcome, and (3) awarding custody of the
child to respondent-father. Because the district court properly applied
the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1499

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
M.M.C. (a/k/a M.M.B.) and
J.J.V., Sr., Parents

ROSS, Judge
Appellant J.J.V., Sr., challenges the district court's order
terminating his parental rights to his children. The district court
concluded that J.J.V. abandoned his children, that he is a palpably
unfit parent, and that a child experienced egregious harm in J.J.V.'s
care. We affirm the parental-termination decision on grounds of
abandonment and palpable unfitness.

 

 
 
 

  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.