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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1969


Wayne Nicolaison, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Wayne Nicolaison challenges the district court's
denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting discharge
from his commitment as a psychopathic personality. Because the record
demonstrates that the district court did not err in denying appellant's
petition, we affirm.

= = = =

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. W., Parent

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant R.W. challenges the district court's termination of her
parental rights. Because the district court's findings are supported by
substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-838

John F. Fiedler, by Faith Sohns, his daughter and attorney-in-fact,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Osakis, et al.,
Respondents.

In this appeal from a summary judgment dismissing
appellant's personal-injury action against respondent city and its
employee, appellant argues that the exception from the liability
limitation in the Municipal Tort Liability Act, Minn. Stat. ? 466.04,
subd. 1a (2006), violates (1) the equal-protection clauses of the United
States and the Minnesota Constitutions, and (2) the due-process and
remedies clauses of the Minnesota Constitution. Because appellant has
not shown direct, personal harm from the alleged constitutional
violation, he does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality
of the statutory exception, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-734

Extendicare Health Services, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Craig T. Henderson,
Respondent,

Brett F. Henderson,
Respondent.
WILLIS, Judge
Appellant nursing home challenges the district court's grant
of summary judgment to respondents, arguing that there is a genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether one or both respondents is
personally liable under Minn. Stat. ? 144.6501 (2004) for the unpaid
costs of respondents' mother's nursing-home care. Because we conclude
that there is no genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary
judgment, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-546

Darryl Burton,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant seeks the return of cash that was seized by the
police when they arrested him for a controlled-substance offense. He
challenges the district court's determination on summary judgment that
the statute of limitations bars his negligence, conversion, and
unjust-enrichment claims. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2213

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Raymond Leon Semler

MINGE, Judge

Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a
sexually dangerous person, arguing that there was not clear and
convincing evidence that he engaged in a course of harmful sexual
conduct or that he is likely to engage in future acts of harmful sexual
conduct. Appellant also argues that his indefinite commitment
constitutes incarceration in violation of his double jeopardy and due
process rights. Because clear and convincing evidence in the record
supports appellant's commitment as a sexually dangerous person and
because his constitutional claim is premature and not developed, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-80
A06-299

Theodore Mellby, et al.,
Relators,

vs.

Cass County,
Respondent,

Bryan Walker,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
In these consolidated land-use appeals, relators argue that
(1) the county's findings under the zoning ordinance are inadequate to
allow review of the county's grant of a preliminary conditional use
permit and planned unit development; (2) the planning commission
misunderstood aspects of the zoning ordinance, including
misunderstanding it to preclude the exercise of discretion in addressing
respondents' various applications for permits and its calculation for
development density; and (3) the county's grant of the conditional use
permit/public unit development, preliminary plat, and final plat were
arbitrary and capricious and based on a misapplication of the relevant
law. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1835

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
T.L.S. and T.J.W., Parents

ROSS, Judge
Appellant T.L.S. challenges the district court's order
terminating her parental rights to her children. She argues that the
district court erred by concluding that the county made reasonable
efforts to reunify her with her children, that reasonable efforts failed
to correct the conditions that led the county to remove the children
from her home, and that termination was in the children's best
interests. We affirm

= = = =

A06-801

In the Matter of the Custody of
T.L.L.

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from an order denying his motion for parenting time
without an evidentiary hearing, Jela Jones argues that he was denied due
process and equal protection. Because Jones did not present any changed
circumstances to the district court to support the modification or
suggest that the modification would be in his child's best interests, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-395

Roger C. Alderson,
Respondent,

vs.

Daniel M. Homolka, et al.,
Appellants.

ROSS, Judge

This case concerns a contest between attorneys over fees in a
personal-injury action that settled for over .4 million. On appeal
from a judgment finding attorney Daniel Homolka and his law firm liable
to attorney Roger Alderson on a quantum-meruit basis for failing to pay
Alderson for services he performed for Homolka, Homolka argues that rule
1.5(e) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct bars the recovery
and that the district court erred by overvaluing Alderson's services, by
denying his motion to dismiss him as an improper party, and by finding
his law firm liable. By notice of review, Alderson challenges the
district court's entry of summary judgment on his breach-of-contract
claim, limitation of prejudgment interest, and denial of his motion to
amend his complaint. Because we find that the record and law support
the district court's findings and conclusions, 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.