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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1092


Dale Nathan,
Appellant,

vs.

Mark Ritchie, as Minnesota Secretary of State, et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Dale Nathan challenges the district court's judgment
dismissing his taxpayer's lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that
respondents Mark Ritchie, as Minnesota Secretary of State, Alberto
Quintela, Jr. as Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Kathy Hjelm, as Fiscal
& Administrative Services Manager, Minnesota Office of Secretary of
State, and the State of Minnesota, acted unlawfully in cancelling a
service contract for the state's voter registration system. Because
appellant does not have standing to bring this lawsuit, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-80


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Dale Allen Lindsey.

LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from an order for civil commitment as a
sexually dangerous person, Dale Lindsey challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his commitment and his placement at the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Lindsey argues that the state failed to
show that he was a sexually dangerous person because his last sexual
offense occurred in 1990, he has not committed any further sexual
offenses since completing sex offender treatment, and he has lived in
the community for about five years without engaging in harmful sexual
conduct. For similar reasons, Lindsey argues that he demonstrated the
availability of a suitable, less-restrictive treatment program. Because
the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and those
findings satisfy the statutory requirements, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2142

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Patrick James Blue, Sr.

PETERSON, Judge

In this appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as
a sexual psychopathic personality and a sexually dangerous person,
appellant argues that (1) the commitment as a sexual psychopathic
personality is not supported by the evidence, (2) the admission of
actuarial-risk-assessment-testing evidence denied him the right to
substantive due process, and (3) the record does not support a finding
that he is currently suffering from a mental disorder justifying
commitment. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2096


James H. Paden,
Appellant,

vs.

Sandra Wald,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order denying appellant father's
motion to modify child custody, father argues that, based upon the
moving papers and supporting documents, the district court should have
found that a prima facie case of endangerment of the children was shown,
and the district court abused its discretion by not appointing a
guardian ad litem or ordering an updated custody evaluation.[1] Because
father's motion and supporting affidavit did not set forth facts that
establish that a significant change in circumstances has occurred since
the prior order, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-939

Clare A. Welter,
Relator,

vs.

University of Minnesota Physicians Corp.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment law judge
(ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits
because she was discharged for misconduct. Relator argues that (1) she
was terminated because her approach to patient care differed from that
of her coworkers, which does not constitute misconduct; and (2) the ULJ
erred in failing to explain why he credited the employer's witnesses
over relator's witnesses. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-533

Willmar Unclaimed Freight, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant,

AND

Dawn Holmes,
Appellant,

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred in allowing
respondent to present evidence and argument at trial about issues that
were decided in appellant's favor on summary judgment. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-672

Hadeel Taxi, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Donald Kirchoffner,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
In this suit for property damage arising out of a
motor-vehicle accident, appellant argues that the district court erred
by declining to vacate its judgment for respondent under Minn. R. Civ.
P. 60.02(c) because respondent had perpetrated a fraud during the
proceedings. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1096

Sean Bowman,
Relator,

vs.

ConAgra Foods,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator Sean Bowman challenges the decision that he was
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been
discharged for employment misconduct for committing theft of three
drills. Relator challenges the credibility determination of the
unemployment law judge (ULJ) and argues, as he did at the hearing, that
he had signed them out but had forgotten to put his name on the sign-out
sheet, and that out of jealousy his ex-girlfriend reported to the
company that he stole the equipment. Because substantial evidence
supports the ULJ's decision, and the ULJ did not err in determining that
relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.
= = = =

A06-987

Holyfield I. James,
Relator,

vs.

Sears Roebuck and Co.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator Holyfield James challenges the decision that he was
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was
discharged for misconduct. He argues that (a) the testimony and the
record do not support the decision and (b) even if he engaged in some
misconduct, it did not rise to the level to disqualify him from
receiving unemployment benefits. Because his allegations hinge on
credibility issues, and because we must give deference to the ULJ's
credibility determinations, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-661

Metropolitan Airports Commission, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Brandon Square III,
Appellant,

2405 East Old Shakopee Road, et al.,
Defendants.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from the district court's condemnation order,
appellant property owner argues that respondent's taking of a fee-simple
interest in appellant's land is not "necessary" under Minn. Stat. ?
117.075 (2006) because respondent's long-term use for the fee simple
interest is speculative, and the taking, therefore, is excessive. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-2015

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of R. E. R., Parent

MINGE, Judge

Appellant Clay County challenges the district court's
dismissal of the county's petitions to terminate respondent's parental
rights to two of her children arguing that the district court's findings
are clearly erroneous. Because the district court's findings are not
clearly erroneous, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1099

In the Matter of the Rate Appeal
of Foundation for Rural Health Care,
d/b/a McIntosh Manor, Crestview Care Center
and Pelican Lake Care Center.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator Foundation for Rural Health Care, Inc. challenges the
final decision of the commissioner of the Department of Human Services
(commissioner) affirming the department's denial of relator's request
for a property-rate increase. Because we conclude that relator
purchased its nursing homes from a related organization, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-983

Ken R. Worden,
Relator,

vs.

Calcutta Partners, LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the ULJ's determination regarding the date of
his last day of work. Because credibility determinations are within the
purview of the ULJ, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-688

S.A.S., by and through his Parents,
W.S. and S.S., and on their
own behalf, and A.B.S.,
Appellants,

vs.

Hibbing Public Schools,
Independent School District No. 701, et al.,
Respondents.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellants S.A.S., by and through his parents, W.S. and S.S.;
W.S. and S.S. on their own behalf; and A.B.S. challenge the district
court's judgment of February 7, 2006, granting summary judgment in favor
of respondents. Appellants argue that the district court erred by
granting summary judgment because collateral estoppel does not preclude
appellants' pendent state claims. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1406

Larry Schultz,
Appellant,

Rodger D. Robb, II,
Appellant,

vs.

Cal Ludeman, et al.,
Respondents.

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellants Larry Schultz and Rodger Robb dispute the
adequacy of district court findings on factors permitting the court to
deny a temporary injunction against the state. Because the record is
adequate to support the district court's findings, 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.