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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1275


Giles Properties, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Donald Kukacka, et al.,
Appellants.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from the district court's grant of specific performance
in this real-estate dispute, appellants argue that the district court's
decision is a result of its failure to apply the supreme court's holding
in Hilton v. Nelsen, 283 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 1979). Because the totality
of the circumstances supports specific performance, the district court
did not abuse its discretion. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-948

Anne Elizabeth Dailey, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Tony Christopher Chermak,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Tony Christopher Chermak challenges the district
court's decisions that respondent Anne Elizabeth Dailey (1) did not
defraud the court in her request to move their minor child out of state;
and (2) was entitled to an award of attorney fees. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-699

Mary Axelson,
Relator,

vs.

Kelly Services Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this certiorari appeal from a decision of an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible to receive
unemployment benefits because she avoided an offer of suitable
employment without good cause, relator argues that the employer did not
make an offer of suitable employment and that the ULJ erred by refusing
to hold an additional evidentiary hearing to permit relator to submit
evidence that the job was not suitable because it paid less than half
the local market rate for relator's customary occupation. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1060

Mahdi Zain,
Appellant,
vs.

PolarFab,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
In an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing his
whistleblower and discrimination claims, Mahdi Zain argues that he
submitted sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment that PolarFab,
his employer, took adverse action against him either through
constructive discharge or by denying him employment opportunities.
Because Zain failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether an adverse employment action was ever taken against
him, and because such adverse action is an essential element of all of
his claims, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment
dismissing this action.

= = = =

A06-750


Ali Dunham, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Darin Opperman,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants challenge four separate orders issued by the
district court, arguing that the district court (1) erred when it
dismissed their claim for tortious interference with contract, (2)
abused its discretion when it denied their motion to compel, (3) abused
its discretion when it dismissed their case with prejudice as a sanction
for discovery violations and inappropriate conduct, and (4) erred when
it denied their motion to disqualify. Because we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants'
motion to compel and did not err when it dismissed appellants' claim for
tortious interference with contract and denied their motion to
disqualify, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the
district court abused its discretion when it dismissed appellants' claim
with prejudice, we reverse in part and remand.

= = = =

A06-1224

In re the Estate of:

John G. O'Neil, Decedent.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's judgment, which
denied her objection to the inventory and final account of the estate,
arguing that the district court erred in allowing payment of the
expenses of administration from the homestead and awarding respondents
attorney fees. Because homestead assets are statutorily exempt, we
reverse.

= = = =

A06-334

City of St. Paul, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Mohammed Shahidullah,
Appellant.

DIETZEN, Judge

In this condemnation proceeding, appellant challenges the
judgment awarding him ,000, arguing that the district court erred in
finding that appellant was properly served by publication and denying
appellant's Batson challenge to the city's peremptory strike of a
potential juror, and appellant alleges misconduct by the city during the
trial. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not
abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1133

In re the Marriage of:
Shane C. Perry, joint petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Jane Hall Perry, n/k/a
Jane Hall-Dayle, joint petitioner,
Appellant.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this child-support-modification dispute,
appellant argues that (1) the district court should not have imputed
income to her when it did not find, and the record does not show, that
she was voluntarily underemployed; (2) the record does not support
basing a support obligation on the income from the sale of her
properties; and (3) the district court incorrectly applied the
Hortis/Valento formula based on its own figures and should have based
its support calculation on appellant's actual net-monthly income. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-591

In re the Marriage of:
Karen Marie Bettermann, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Randy Lee Bettermann,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, Karen Bettermann
argues that the district court understated Randy Bettermann's income and
abused its discretion by denying her request for spousal maintenance and
by awarding Randy Bettermann the entire value of the business he
operates. By notice of review, Randy Bettermann challenges the district
court's decision to amend its division of a mortgage-escrow refund and
to deny his request for attorney fees. Because the district court acted
within its discretion in determining Randy Bettermann's income, denying
spousal maintenance, dividing marital property, and denying attorney
fees, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1322

Sean M. Ahlborn,
Respondent,

vs.

Christine M. Roban,
Appellant.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellant Christine Roban challenges the district court's
conclusion that the parties were not jointly liable for the balance of
an outstanding car loan-leaving her responsible to repay respondent Sean
Ahlborn for the entirety of his cost of payments on the loan. Because
the documentary evidence unambiguously indicates that the parties were
joint debtors, we reverse.

= = ==

A06-950

Original Log Homes of Minnesota,
Appellant,

vs.

Merrill R. Anderson Trust, et al.,
Respondents.

CRIPPEN, Judge
In this real estate development dispute, appellant Original
Log Homes of Minnesota challenges the district court's dismissal of the
complaint for failure to state a

claim, arguing that the court should have applied a substantial
compliance test for determining the existence of statutory standing and
that the court could not dismiss on appellant's statement of the claim
after considering matters beyond the pleadings. 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.