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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1302



Veronica Hicks,
Relator,

vs.

Dakota County Community Development Agency,
Respondent.



STONEBURNER, Judge



Relator seeks review of termination of her Section 8 rental assistance, arguing that (1) the record does not support a determination that she failed to abide by program requirements; (2) the hearing officer failed to make adequate findings regarding credibility determinations; and (3) the hearing officer acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because the hearing officer failed to make adequate findings and failed to consider mitigating circumstances, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-1371

In the Matter of the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District
NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738, Reissuance for the
Expanded Discharge of Treated Wastewater,
Douglas County , Alexandria , Minnesota .

WORKE , Judge

On appeal from the reissuance of the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary Districtís wastewater-treatment-facility discharge permit, relator Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy argues that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency erred by failing to calculate and impose water quality-based effluent limits for phosphorus as required by federal law. Because the reissued permit violates a federal regulation promulgated under the Clean Water Act, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

= = = =

A06-1391





Robin Hillan Pihlman, n/k/a

Robin Hillan Schuyler, petitioner,

Respondent,



vs.



Dewey Rehnholdt Pihlman,

Appellant.



HALBROOKS , Judge

Appellant challenges the district courtís award of conduct-based attorney fees to respondent, arguing that he did not unnecessarily add to the length and cost of the proceedings by requesting an evidentiary hearing on his motion for change of custody. Appellant also argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to amend the findings to delete the portion of the dissolution judgment providing respondent a lien against a cabin awarded to appellant. Finally, appellant contends that the district court erred in determining his net monthly income is ,033, alleging that the district court failed to consider his ordinary-and-necessary business expenses in its calculation. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1462





Bruce William Luther,

Appellant,



Lynette C. Luther,

Plaintiff,



vs.



American National Bank of Minnesota ,

Respondent.



PARKER , Judge

On appeal from summary judgment in this collection dispute, pro se appellant debtor argues that the district court judge should have recused himself, and the district court judge abused his discretion by failing to grant relief from the summary judgment against him. We affirm.

= = = =
A06-1554

A06-2048



AHR Construction, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Joseph O. Dixon,
Appellant,


and Joseph O. Dixon,
Appellant,

vs.

AHR Construction, Inc.,
Respondent.



STONEBURNER, Judge



In these consolidated appeals, pro se appellant challenges (1) the district courtís issuance of a writ of recovery to respondent for property that respondent bought at a foreclosure sale and (2) the district courtís grant of summary judgment dismissing appellantís conversion action against respondent. Because respondent was entitled to possession of the property and there are no genuine issues of material fact in the conversion action, we affirm both decisions.

= = = =
A06-1772



White Bear Township Development, LLC,

Appellant,



vs.



Scott A. Stoddard, et al.,

Respondents.



ROSS , Judge

This appeal concerns the viability of a real-estate purchase agreement that the sellers cancelled after the buyer failed to close within the time set for closing. We must decide whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the buyerís motion either to compel the sellers to close on the property and to accept the buyerís proposed new terms or to enjoin the sellers from cancelling the original purchase agreement after the buyer breached. Because we find that the buyerís proposed new terms would materially alter the terms of the partiesí purchase agreement and the buyer offers no legal basis to force the seller to accept or to preclude the seller from cancelling the purchase agreement, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the buyerís requested injunctive relief, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1788





In re the Marriage of:

Lawrence Wayne Schneider, petitioner,

Respondent,
vs.
Jill Lynn Schneider,
Respondent Below,

County of Anoka, intervenor,
Appellant.



PETERSON , Judge

In this child-support-related dispute involving the suspension of respondent-fatherís driverís license, appellant-county argues that the record does not support the fine imposed on the county for erroneously suspending fatherís driverís license. We reverse.

= = = =
A06-1971



Stockwalk Group, Inc. and Miller, Johnson, Steichen & Kinnard, Inc.,
Appellants,

vs.

Frank Charles Taylor III,
Respondent,

Taylor Law Office, PLC,
Respondent,

Amy Kaldor Taylor,
Respondent,

Kaldor Law Firm, PLLC,
Respondent.



MINGE, Judge



Appellants challenge the district courtís denial of their motion to temporarily enjoin respondents-attorneys from representing an adverse party in an arbitration matter. After briefing, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

= = = =
A06-1982



Margaret MacRae,
trustee for the next of kin of Roderick MacRae,
Appellant,

vs.

Group Health Plan, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.



STONEBURNER, Judge



Appellant challenges the district courtís grant of summary judgment to respondents, dismissing appellantís wrongful-death action as barred by Minn. Stat. ß 541.076 (2006), the statute of limitations for medical-malpractice actions. Based on existing caselaw, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that appellantís cause of action accrued on the date of misdiagnosis and is therefore barred by the statute of limitations, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2194



In re the Marriage of:
Jonathan H. Ginsburg, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Julie K. Gordon,
Respondent.



DIETZEN, Judge

In this postdissolution proceeding, appellant challenges the district court order denying his motion to reduce or terminate spousal maintenance, arguing that the court abused its discretion in not finding a substantial change in circumstances that rendered the original award unfair and unreasonable. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =
A06-2309



Donald W. Steinkraus,
Respondent,

vs.

Cook County Board of Adjustment,
Appellant.



STONEBURNER, Judge



Appellant, a county board of adjustment, challenges the district courtís order reversing appellantís denial of respondentís request for a variance and granting the variance. We reverse.

= = = =

A07-427

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:

S.T. Parent.



DIETZEN , Judge



Appellant challenges the district court orders terminating her parental rights and denying her motion for a new trial, arguing that the order terminating her parental rights is not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and that the court violated her right to substantive due process of law. Because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =
A07-532



In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of S. L. L., Parent



MINGE, Judge

Appellant challenges the district courtís decision to terminate her parental rights, arguing that the district court failed to conduct a reasoned analysis of the best interests of the child. We affirm.

= = = =

A 07-582





In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
B.W. and L.W., Parents.



PARKER , Judge



In December 2004, seven-year-old J.W. was removed from the home of his adoptive parents, appellants B.W. and L.W., after L.W. struck him with a belt. B.W.ís and L.W.ís parental rights were subsequently terminated in February 2007. On appeal from termination of their parental rights, B.W. and L.W. argue that (1) termination was clearly erroneous due to the lack of an out-of-home placement plan and (2) the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support termination under the two statutory bases found by the district court. Because the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the district courtís findings, we affirm.

= = = =
A07-612



In the Matter of the Welfare of the children of:
B.W. and L.W., Legal Custodians.



STONEBURNER, Judge



St. Louis County petitioned to terminate appellantsí legal and physical custody of four children, who are enrolled members of the White Earth Tribe, after the children were found to be in need of protection or services of the court due to appellantsí acts. Six days before trial was to begin, the tribe moved to transfer the proceedings to tribal court. The district court expedited a hearing on the motion and granted the transfer, concluding that the tribal court is the proper forum to hear this matter. Appellants challenge the transfer order, arguing that the district court erred in granting the motion because good cause existed to deny the transfer. Because a district court is not required to deny transfer to a tribal court even when good cause to deny a transfer may exist, and because the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion by granting the transfer, we affirm.

= = = =
A07-912



In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Nicholas Harold Luhmann.



STONEBURNER, Judge



Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality. Because the evidence is sufficient, we affirm. [1]





[1] Appellant also initially asserted on appeal that he proved that a less-restrictive alternative than commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program was available, but in his brief, he concedes that the existence of a less-restrictive alternative was not proved.

 

 
 
 

  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.