MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  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@injurylawtwincities.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2079

Brenda George, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Joshua Dean Marshall, et al.,
Defendants,

Ryan Christopher Schoen,
Respondent,

and

Safeco Insurance Co.,
Intervenor.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Brenda George was injured in a traffic accident
when the vehicle in which she was a passenger was struck by a vehicle
driven by Joshua Marshall. George brought a negligence action against
Marshall and his passenger, respondent Ryan Schoen, among others. As to
Schoen, George sought to recover on the legal theory that he had
instructed and encouraged Marshall to engage in the unlawful driving
conduct that led to the accident. The district court concluded that
Schoen, as a passenger, owed George no legal duty and granted summary
judgment to Schoen. Because we agree with the district court that
George has not alleged facts that would establish a prima facie case of
negligence as to Schoen, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1874

Take 5, Delaware Business Trust, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Lafayette International, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Take 5, Delaware Business Trust, and Walt Foster, its
principal, appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to
respondents Lafayette International, Inc., The Green Edge, Inc., and
Douglas A. Kretchmer, principal of both corporations. By notice of
review, respondents challenge the district court's denial of their
request for rule 11 sanctions.
Because the district court did not err by concluding that
appellants failed to make a prima facie case of malicious prosecution
against respondents, we affirm the dismissal of the action for malicious
prosecution. Because respondents failed to comply with the requirements
of Minn. R. Civ. P. 11, we affirm the court's denial of rule 11
sanctions. Because we conclude that the court erred when it stated that
judgments may only be enforced under Minn. Stat. ?? 548.26-.33 (2006) or
Minn. Stat. ?? 571.93-932 (2006), we reverse the district court's
dismissal of appellants' claim for Lafayette's failure to pay an earlier
judgment and remand.

= = = =

A06-1654


LouAnn M. Swift,
Relator,

vs.

Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
By writ of certiorari, LouAnn Swift appeals an unemployment
law judge's (ULJ) determination that she was discharged for employment
misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's determination
that Swift was discharged for a series of inappropriate actions that
violated the standards of behavior that a long-term care facility can
reasonably expect from a registered nurse who is providing care for
vulnerable adults, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2081
A07-321

Christopher Rouse,
Appellant (A06-2081),
Respondent (A07-321),

vs.

Craig J. Marshall,
Respondent (A06-2081),
Appellant (A07-321).

KALITOWSKI, Judge
In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff-appellant
Christopher Rouse challenges the district court's denial of his motion
for a new trial or additur, arguing that the jury's verdict denying past
and future pain and suffering is not reconcilable with its award of past
and future medical expenses. Defendant-appellant Craig Marshall
challenges the district court's denial of his motion for costs and
disbursements under Minn. R. Civ. P. 68, arguing that the district court
erred by considering costs incurred by plaintiff after defendant's rule
68 offer was rejected. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.


= = = =

A06-1687

Steven Donald Dorr,
Relator,

vs.

John Deere Shared Services Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Steven Donald Dorr challenges the unemployment law
judge's (ULJ) determination that he quit his employment without good
reason caused by the employer. Relator also argues that by failing to
obtain documentation that relator requested, the ULJ did not properly
develop the record. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1545

Dennis Hallen and Rebecca Hart,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Appellants,

vs.

Hometown America, LLC,
d/b/a Cimarron Manufactured Home Park,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellants Dennis Hallen and Rebecca Hart, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, challenge the district
court's judgment in favor of respondent Hometown America, LLC, arguing
that the district court erred by (1) denying appellants' jury trial
request; (2) misstating the appropriate standard of proof regarding
retaliation under Minn. Stat. ? 327C.12 (2006); (3) making clearly
erroneous findings of fact; and (4) admitting irrelevant expert
testimony. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-594
A07-669


In re the Marriage of:
Pamela J. Stevermer,
petitioner,
Respondent (A07-594),
Appellant (A07-669),

vs.

Kenneth A. Stevermer,
Appellant (A07-594),
Respondent (A07-669).


KLAPHAKE, Judge
In these consolidated appeals, appellant Pamela J. Stevermer
challenges the district court's order denying her motion to modify child
custody and parenting time without an evidentiary hearing, denying her
request that the child be seen by a therapist, and "encourag[ing]" the
parties to "attempt to resolve" their dispute through mediation.
Respondent Kenneth A. Stevermer challenges the district court's order
denying his motion to establish child support.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying respondent's motion to establish child support based on the
terms of the parties' agreement, we affirm that order. Because the
district court erred by failing to require the parties to submit their
custody and parenting time dispute to mediation, as required by the
terms of their agreement, we reverse the order denying appellant's
motions. We order the parties to submit the matter to mediation, and we
make no ruling on the merits of appellant's motions.

= = = =

A06-1822

Mary Owens,
Appellant,

vs.

Lisa Carter,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Mary Owens challenges the district court's grant
of summary judgment dismissing her claim of negligence against
respondent Lisa Carter for injuries she suffered when she tripped
through a front door that had missing glass. Because respondent owed no
duty to appellant to warn of a known and obvious hazard, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1482

Elizabeth Beaumia,
Respondent,

vs.

Mark Eisenbraun,
Defendant,

Denise Eisenbraun,
Appellant.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order evicting her
from a house owned by respondent, arguing that because respondent failed
to register the house with the City of Alexandria as a rental unit, her
failure to pay rent cannot be a ground for eviction. We reverse.

= = = =

A06-1815

City of Stillwater,
Respondent,

vs.

Marcia Kilbourne,
Appellant.

STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary
judgment on respondent city's declaratory-judgment action, declaring
that appellants are in violation of respondent's zoning code and
granting injunctive relief directing appellants to return their property
to the use permitted under the city's zoning code. Appellants also
challenge the dismissal of their counterclaim that asserts an unlawful
taking. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-272

In the Matter of the
Welfare of the Child of:
B. J.-M. and H.W., Parents

HUDSON, Judge
In this termination-of-parental-rights appeal,
appellant-father argues that (a) the district court erroneously
terminated his parental rights on a basis that was not pleaded; (b) the
district court erroneously considered certain evidence; (c) the record
does not support the termination of his parental rights; (d) the county
failed to adequately investigate transferring legal custody of his
child; and (e) the record does not show that termination was in the
child's best interests. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1840

Tamara Haeg, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

George Geiger,
Respondent,

Steve Slater, et al.,
Defendants.

HUDSON, Judge
This is an appeal from summary judgment in a negligence action,
in which appellant, who was a passenger in a golf cart driven by
respondent, sued respondent for negligently parking the golf cart.
While appellant and respondent were seated in the parked golf cart,
another golfer hit a golf ball that hit appellant in the left eye,
ultimately causing her to lose the eye. The court entered summary
judgment for respondent, ruling that no special relationship existed
giving rise to a duty on respondent's part to protect appellant.
Appellant argues that (a) her claim is one of "direct negligence" and
thus no special relationship is necessary to impose a duty of reasonable
care; (b) respondent owed appellant a duty of reasonable care not to
injure her though his negligence; and (c) respondent owed appellant a
duty of reasonable care under Restatement (Second) of Torts ? 321
(1965). Because we conclude that the district court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of respondent, we reverse and remand for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

= = = =

A06-1730

Linda Nance, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Daniel Evje, et al.,
Respondents,

Mike Atkins, et al.,
Respondents,

Nathan Richter, et al.,
Respondents,

Mike Bell,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellants Linda and Eric Nance challenge the district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents Daniel and Valerie
Evje (collectively Evjes); respondents Mike Atkins, Century 21/Dickerson
Realtors, and Mark Dickerson (collectively Atkins); respondents Nathan
Richter and ERA Pederson Realty, Inc. (collectively Richter); and
respondent Mike Bell. Because there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the district court properly applied the law, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-666

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
T.R., T.M., P.P. and B.H., Parents.

WORKE, Judge
In this termination-of-parental-rights matter,
appellant-father argues that (1) the record does not support the finding
that he is a palpably unfit parent; (2) the county failed to provide
reasonable services to him and to reunify the family; and (3) the record
does not support the determination that termination of his parental
rights is in the best interests of the child. Because we conclude that
there is clear and convincing evidence in the record supporting the
finding that appellant is palpably unfit to properly care for his child
for the reasonably foreseeable future, that appellant was provided with
reasonable rehabilitative services and further reunification efforts
would be futile, and that the termination of appellant's parental rights
is in the child's best interests, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-681

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Dwane David Peterson.

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from an order for civil commitment as a sexually
dangerous person, Dwane Peterson argues that the county failed to
present evidence of an overt act of dangerousness and that the evidence
was insufficient to support the district court's finding that he engaged
in a course of harmful sexual conduct. Because Peterson raises the
overt-act argument for the first time on appeal and the evidence
establishes that he engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1673


Kennard Anderson, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

State of Minnesota and its
Department of Natural Resources,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant State of Minnesota and its Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) challenge the district court's order granting a
prescriptive easement in gross on state land to respondents Kennard
Anderson, Evans Anderson, James Anderson, Wayne Anderson, Douglas
Anderson, David Anderson, Richard Anderson, and Michael Anderson. 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 Law Firm 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.