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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A05-310

In re the Marriage of

Thomas Carroll Rubey,
Appellant

vs.

Valerie Ann Vannett,
Respondent

RANDALL, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's final judgment of June
21, 2004, awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties'
daughter to respondent. Appellant also challenges the district court's
order of December 9, 2004, denying appellant's motion for amended
findings and/or a new trial. On appeal, appellant argues that the
district court abused its discretion by: (1) adopting respondent's
proposed findings verbatim; (2) granting respondent sole legal and sole
physical custody in violation of appellant's due process rights; (3)
awarding respondent attorney fees; (4) excluding appellant's expert
testimony; (5) accepting the report of the custody evaluator; and (6)
allocating the dependent medical costs to appellant. Appellant also
challenges the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. ? 518.17. We affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-562


Alma Allen Webb,
Appellant,

vs.

Xcel Energy, Inc.,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Alma
Webb's nine claims relating to the termination of her employment at Xcel
Energy. On appeal, Webb challenges the dismissal of three of her
claims: reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, whistleblower
retaliation under Minn. Stat. ? 181.932 (2006), and negligent
supervision and retention. Because the facts, taken in the light most
favorable to Webb, fail to establish elements essential to each of the
three claims, we affirm the district court's summary judgment.

= = = =

A06-752

Gordon Manns, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Afton Alps, et al.,
Respondents.
WRIGHT, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim,
appellants argue that the district court erred by ruling that primary
assumption of risk bars their claim. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-860

In re: Estate of Robert W. Otto,
a/k/a Robert William Otto
and Robert Otto, Deceased.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant James Otto challenges the district court's
determination that a devise in his father's will of a certificate of
deposit was specific, that the devise was adeemed by extinction, and
that the bonds purchased with the proceeds of the certificate should be
placed in the residue of the estate. Because the district court did not
clearly err in finding that the devise to appellant is specific and
because none of the exceptions to ademption that have been adopted by
the Minnesota legislature apply here, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-866

David Michael Durbin, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Janeen Renee Saylor,
f/k/a Janeen Renee Durbin,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant Janeen R. Durbin challenges the district court's order which
(1) summarily denied her petition for parenting-time restrictions, (2)
appointed a parenting-time expediter; (3) awarded compensatory parenting
time; and (4) threatened the posting of a bond to secure her future
compliance with the parenting-time schedule. Because we conclude that
appellant made sufficiently specific allegations of child abuse
warranting an evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-931

Scott Larson, d/b/a ZVDAC Enterprises,
Appellant,

vs.

Clement Felix,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from a judgment in which the district court found that
both parties had breached the contract but granted appellant ,500 in
equitable damages, appellant argues that he did not breach the contract,
and, therefore, should receive full compensation according to its terms.
We reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-970
Donald Franklin Granlund, Jr.,
Appellant,

vs.

Mark L. Lumley,
Respondent,

Michael Droubie,
Respondent,

Suzanne Droubie,
Respondent,

Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.
WRIGHT, Judge
In this boundary dispute, appellant challenges the district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, arguing that the
district court granted relief beyond that sought by appellants and
failed to give appellant a meaningful opportunity to oppose summary
judgment before resolving certain issues sua sponte. Appellant also
argues that the denial of his motion to amend the complaint to add a
claim of professional negligence against respondent surveyor was an
abuse of discretion. By notice of review, respondent surveyor maintains
that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
appellant's claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-1004

Edward Behnke,
Appellant,

vs.

Steven Behnke,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from summary judgment dismissing his action for
damages arising out of alleged sexual abuse by respondent, appellant
argues that the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. ? 541.15(a)
(2004) is six years from the date the minor reaches the age of 18 years,
not one year as the district court ruled. We reverse.
= = = =

A06-1050

Nelson W. Womack,
Appellant,

vs.

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board,
Respondent,

Minneapolis Professional Employees Association,
Respondent,

John Does 1-5,
Defendants.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his
petition to vacate an arbitration award and his common-law fraud claim.
Appellant argues that the district court erred by finding that (1) he
lacked standing to vacate the arbitration award, (2) he was required and
failed to file a timely motion to vacate the award, (3) his petition to
vacate the award does not state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, and (4) his common-law fraud claim against the respondent Park
Board fails to state a claim because it is an improper attempt to vacate
the award. Because appellant lacks standing to vacate the arbitration
award and because he failed to state a claim of fraud against the Park
Board, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1106

Bradley P. Hagen,
Relator,

vs.

United Air Lines, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Bradley Hagen challenges the decision of the
unemployment law judge that he was disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct.
Because the record fails to address whether relator's conduct had a
significant adverse impact on the employer, we reverse.

= = = =

A06-1169

Jane Doe,
Appellant,

vs.

HealthPartners, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,

SAM Ventures, Inc.,
d/b/a The Imperial Room, et al.,
Defendants.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Jane Doe challenges the district court's dismissal of
her medical negligence and conversion claims for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that (1) she has a
property interest in her lost urine sample sufficient to support a
conversion claim; and (2) the loss of her urine sample deprived her of
her right to pursue criminal justice. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1209


In re the Marriage of:
Barbara Jean Jucick,
f/k/a Barbara Jean Jucick-Kleinman,
petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

James Michael Kleinman,
Appellant.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred in its finding on his
income for child-support guideline purposes, in deviating from the
Hortis/Valento formula, and in finding that the parties' eldest child,
who has spinal muscular atrophy, is an eligible object for a child
support award. He also disputes the court's designation of marital
property, its award of attorney fees to respondent, and its findings on
need that underlie the court's permanent maintenance award. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1276

Southside Plumbing & Heating, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Chris Plourde, et al.,
Appellants,

Western Bank, et al.,
Defendants.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this mechanics'-lien attorney-fee dispute, appellants argue
that the district court abused its discretion by awarding respondent
attorney fees significantly in excess of the lien amount. We reverse
and remand.

= = = =

A07-58


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Leslie Lavern Tallman.

HARTEN, Judge

Appellant challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually
dangerous person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support
the finding that he is highly likely to reoffend and that Minn. Stat. ?
253B.02, subd. 18c (2004) is unconstitutional as applied to him.
Because we conclude that evidence supports the finding that appellant is
highly likely to reoffend and that the statute is not unconstitutional
as applied to appellant, 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.