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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-330



In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. M. E., Child.



KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant juvenile S.M.E. challenges the district court’s revocation of a stay of adjudication, arguing that (1) the district court violated his due-process rights by not following the required procedures of the delinquency rules; (2) appellant did not personally admit the probation violations; (3) some of the cited violations did not concern conditions of probation; and (4) the district court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support adjudication of delinquency and the dispositional order. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-690



Jacob Merrill, by and through his next of friend

and natural legal guardian, Heather Kelly,

Appellant,



vs.



Stefan P. Guttormsson, MD,

Respondent,



Northland OB/GYN PA,

Defendant,



St. Luke’s Hospital of Duluth ,

Respondent.



KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant Jacob Merrill, by and through his mother Heather Kelly, challenges the district court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion to amend the complaint by adding new claims. Appellant argues that the appropriate standard of review is de novo, or in the alternative, that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the motion on the grounds that (1) appellant failed to produce evidence supporting the proposed claim; (2) the amendment would lead to inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial evidence; and (3) the proposed claims would not withstand a motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-910

A06-1142



In re the Marriage of:
Victor Anthony Kreuziger, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Patricia Evelyne Kreuziger,
Respondent (A06-910),


In re the Marriage of:
Victor Anthony Kreuziger, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.

Patricia Evelyne Kreuziger,
Resp ondent (A06-1142).



PETERSON, Judge

On appeal in this marital dissolution, appellant-husband argues that (1) certain real property awarded to husband was overvalued because the valuation (a) was based on the speculative assumption that the property could be rezoned; and (b) misstated the value of the marital improvements to the property; (2) the value of the overvalued real property should have been reduced by the amount of loans secured by the property; (3) the distribution of the marital property was inequitable; and (4) the district court should have granted husband’s motion to reopen the judgment for fraud. We affirm.

= = = =
A06-1219



Naomi Isaacson,
Relator,

Laureen Marie Ballinger,
Relator,

vs.

City of St. Paul,
Respondent,

St. Paul City Council,
Respondent.



MINGE, Judge

By writ of certiorari, relators challenge action by respondent city authorizing demolition of their building. Relators argue that the city’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, that the city failed to follow its own procedures, and that changed circumstances make demolition of the building improper. Respondent moves to strike portions of relators’ brief as outside the record. We affirm and grant respondent’s motion.

= = = =
A06-1433



Associated Bank, National Association,

as successor in interest to First Federal Capital Bank,

as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank

f/k/a First Federal Savings and Loan Association,

Respondent,



vs.



Joel Twaiten a/k/a Joel A. Twaiten,

Appellant.



ROSS, Judge

Joel Twaiten appeals from two orders in a garnishment proceeding, arguing that the court erred in its first order by finding that some of his monthly disability income is not exempt from garnishment, and erred in its second order by finding that the first proceeding and order barred his exemption claim. We affirm the district court’s finding that Twaiten’s second claim was barred, but we remand for additional findings on the amount of income subject to garnishment and Twaiten’s reasonable and necessary needs.

= = = =

A06-1616



In re the Marriage of:

Scott Thomas Frampton, petitioner,

Appellant,



vs.



Leicha Chenoa Garcia-Frampton,

Respondent,



and



County of Washington ,

Intervenor.



TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Appellant Scott Thomas Frampton argues that the child support magistrate (CSM) erred in applying Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(f) (2004), to calculate appellant’s self-employment income for purposes of setting his child support obligation to respondent Leicha Chenoa Garcia-Frampton, the custodial parent of the parties’ two children. Because the CSM failed to make findings on appellant’s gross receipts and ordinary and necessary business expenses, which are required by the statutory formula for determining self-employment income, we reverse and remand for further findings.

= = = =

A06-1641



Avonne L. Winston,
Relator,

vs.

Minneapolis Public Housing Authority,
Respondent.



PETERSON, Judge



In this appeal from a termination of her rental assistance, relator argues that the public housing authority improperly overturned the decision of the hearing officer and that her alleged involvement in criminal activity was an insufficient basis for terminating her assistance. We reverse.

= = = =
A06-1679



Drid Williams,

Appellant,



vs.



James Gang of Minnetonka ,

Respondent.



ROSS, Judge

This case concerns the survival of a negligence claim arising from a patron’s trip and fall at a hair salon. Drid Williams challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of James Gang of Minnetonka . Williams sued James Gang for negligence, seeking to recover damages incurred when she tripped over a two-by-four board affixed to the floor. The district court held that the condition was open and obvious so that James Gang owed no duty to warn Williams. Because we find that the record presents material issues of disputed fact regarding whether the obstacle was open and obvious, and also because the district court did not address the additional issue of whether James Gang should have anticipated the potential harm despite its open and obvious nature, we reverse.

= = = =

A06-1681





Manjit Bajwa, et al.,

Appellants,



vs.



Thomas A. Foster, et al.,

Respondents.



TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Appellants Manjit Bajwa and Gas Aggregation Services, Inc. d/b/a Gas Services, Inc. challenge the district court’s dismissal of their legal malpractice lawsuit against their former attorney and his law firm, respondents Thomas A. Foster and Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. The district court determined that dismissal was mandated because appellants failed to timely serve an expert-identification or expert-disclosure affidavit, as required by Minn. Stat. § 544.42 (2004). Because the expert-disclosure affidavit was not filed within 180 days after October 26, 2005, which is the date that respondents acknowledged service of the complaint, and because appellants’ answers to interrogatories, which were filed within 180 days, are insufficient to meet the minimum standards recently set out by the supreme court in Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., 732 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2007), we affirm.

= = = =
A06-1731





In the Matter of Midwest Oil of

Minnesota , LLC.



WILLIS, Judge

Relator retail-gasoline-station company appeals from the state’s imposition of a 0,000 civil penalty for violating a Minnesota statute that prohibits offering gasoline for sale at a retail price that is lower than a statutory minimum price, arguing that the agency’s refusal to consider additional evidence or to grant a rehearing was arbitrary and capricious, that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and that the statute under which the penalty is imposed is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to relator. We affirm.

= = = =
A06-2251



Kris T. Scheller,

Relator,



vs.



Cragun Corporation,

Respondent,



Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.



MUEHLBERG, Judge

This is a certiorari appeal from a decision of the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Relator challenges the DEED decision dismissing his request for reconsideration of the appeal of his ineligibility determination. Because his request for reconsideration was untimely, we affirm.

= = = =
A06-2395



In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.A.L.



STONEBURNER, Judge



Appellant challenges the district court’s designation of the proceeding against him in juvenile court as an extended jurisdiction juvenile proceeding (EJJ) [1] in the context of denying the state’s motion to certify appellant as an adult. Appellant argues that the district court (1) violated his right to due process by failing to order a new psychological evaluation and a new certification study to remedy the original evaluators’ exposure to irrelevant information; (2) erred by considering certification and EJJ designation simultaneously; (3) made clearly erroneous findings; and (4) committed reversible error by designating the proceedings EJJ. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-25



In the Matter of the Welfare

of the Children of:



S.E.P. and J.W.P., Parents.



ROSS, Judge

S.E.P. and J.W.P. challenge a district court order terminating their parental rights to their two children. Because the district court’s conclusion that J.W.P., the children’s father, is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the termination of his parental rights. But because the district court’s decision to terminate the rights of the children’s mother, S.E.P., is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the termination of her parental rights.

= = = =

A07-549



In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:

D.N.R., a/k/a D.N.J., Parent

RANDALL, Judge

On appeal after remand in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, appellant-mother argues (a) the county did not make reasonable efforts to reunite mother and her children; (b) the termination was improperly based on conditions at a time other
than the termination; and (c) the record lacks evidence demonstrating that termination is in the best interests of the children. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-552





In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:

Alicia Lee Bolles.

LANSING, Judge

In this appeal from an order for indeterminate civil commitment as mentally ill and dangerous, Alicia Bolles contends that the record does not support the district court’s determination of dangerousness. Because we conclude that sufficient evidence established that Bolles met the statutory criteria for commitment as mentally ill and dangerous, and that Bolles failed to show that a less-restrictive treatment option was available, we affirm.



[1] The EJJ statute provides for extended jurisdiction in cases in which a juvenile is alleged to have committed a felony. Minn. Stat. § 260B.130 (2006); In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr., 607 N.W.2d 432, 434 ( Minn. 2000). On a finding of guilt or an entry of a guilty plea in an EJJ prosecution, the juvenile receives both an adult criminal sentence and a juvenile disposition. See Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 4. Execution of the adult sentence is stayed as long as the offender does not violate the provisions of the juvenile disposition and does not commit a new offense. Id.

 

 
 
 

  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.