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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2031

In re the Estate of:
Gerald Lee Larson, a/k/a Jerry Lee Larson, Deceased.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Jennifer Anderson challenges the district court
order granting summary judgment to respondent Earl Larson, personal
representative of decedent Gerald Lee Larson's estate. Appellant argues
that the district court erred in dismissing her action based on
Minnesota's anti-palimony statutes. We reverse and remand.

= = = =

A06-2349

Carrie Koivisto,
Respondent,

vs.

Duane L. Dale, et al.,
Defendants,

Richard A. Poupard, et al.,
Appellants.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellants, a snowplow operator and his state employer,
challenge the district court's denial of their motion for summary
judgment in which they asserted official immunity, vicarious official
immunity, and snow and ice immunity in this action for damages arising
out of a collision with a state snowplow.
Because the snowplow operator was engaged in discretionary
conduct at the time of the collision, he is entitled to the absolute
defense of official immunity, and his state employer is entitled to the
absolute defense of vicarious official immunity. Therefore, the
district court erred as a matter of law, and we reverse.

= = = =

A06-2236

In re the Marriage of:

Matthew Jon Lewis, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Jacqueline Lee Lewis,
Appellant.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's amended
dissolution judgment and decree, arguing that the district court abused
its discretion by not awarding her permanent spousal maintenance and by
ordering an automatic step reduction in the amount of her temporary
maintenance. On notice of review, respondent challenges the district
court's findings regarding his income, appellant's reasonable monthly
expenses, and his spousal-maintenance arrearages. Respondent also
argues that the district court abused its discretion by apportioning
certain debts to him and by making him entirely responsible for the
minor children's uninsured medical expenses. Because the district court
abused its discretion by ordering an automatic step reduction in
appellant's spousal maintenance, by finding that respondent's pension is
entirely employer-funded, and by ordering respondent to pay ,915.21 in
maintenance arrearages, but did not abuse its discretion in any other
regard, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-1825

Michelle M. Dockter,
Relator,

vs.

Warroad Care Center,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ)
decision disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing
that the ULJ erred by finding that she quit without good reason caused
by the employer. Because the ULJ did not err by finding that relator
quit her job without good reason caused by the employer, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1812

In re the Marriage of:

Michael J. Schwagel, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Kelly Rylynn Ward,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district court's orders
establishing child support and denying his motion to amend his
child-support obligation, arguing that the district court overstated his
income, improperly included his veterans' disability compensation in his
income for child-support purposes, failed to consider respondent's
income, and that the child-support award is unfair. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion by establishing child
support and did not err by including appellant's veterans' disability
payments in his income, and because the award is not unfair, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2123


Cindy J. Woods,
Relator,

vs.

Federated Retail Holdings, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator Cindy J. Woods challenges the unemployment law
judge's (ULJ) decision that relator was disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1859

Lisa T. Truong,
Relator,

vs.

G M L Incorporated,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges an unemployment
law judge's determination that she quit her employment and is therefore
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1586

Masterson Personnel Inc.,
Relator,

vs.

Julie A. Beck,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge

By writ of certiorari, relator-employer challenges the
unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision approving unemployment benefits
for respondent-employee. Relator argues that the ULJ erred in
concluding that respondent was not discharged for employment misconduct.
Based on the stage of the benefit-payment process, respondent Department
of Employment and Economic Development moved to dismiss the appeal. We
reverse and deny the Department's motion.

= = = =

A07-0616

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Ozhaawaskoo Giishig
a/k/a Guy Israel Green

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually
dangerous person, appellant argues that (1) there is insufficient
evidence to support his commitment; (2) his commitment is barred by
collateral estoppel because the issues raised by the state's petition
are the same as the issues the state raised in an unsuccessful 1993
petition for indeterminate commitment; (3) because he is a Native
American, the court lacks jurisdiction to commit him under Public Law
83-280; and (4) his commitment is punitive and violates the Double
Jeopardy Clause. We affirm.

= = ==

A07-635

Paradigm Enterprises, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Westfield National Insurance Co.,
Appellant.


MINGE, Judge

Appellant-insurer challenges the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of respondent-employer for claimed overpayment
of respondent's workers' compensation insurance premium. Because the
district court did not err in interpreting Minn. Stat. ? 176.041, subd.
1(g) (2006), or in construing the parties' insurance contract, we
conclude that overpayment occurred, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2009

Mary C. Osland,
Relator,

vs.

Teens Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law
judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because
she had been discharged for misconduct, contending that (a) she did not
receive a fair hearing, and (b) the ULJ should have credited her
testimony that she was discharged due to a personality conflict with the
owner and should not have credited the employer's evidence that
customers had complained about her, that she had been warned that this
could lead to her termination, and that she had been fired based on the
complaints. Because the ULJ conducted the hearing fairly, the ULJ's
findings are supported by substantial evidence, and we defer to the
ULJ's credibility determinations, we affirm.


= = = =

A06-1319

In re the Marriage of:
Jennifer Ann Puetz, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

John Thomas Puetz,
Appellant.

WORKE, Judge
In this dissolution appeal, appellant-husband argues that
(1) he was denied due process and a fair trial because he was not
provided with court-appointed counsel when he was incompetent and
confused over the role of the guardian ad litem, and (2) the property
division was inequitable. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-807

In re the Marriage of:
Michelle E. Li-Kuehne, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Stephen E. Kuehne,
Appellant.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Appellant-husband argues that the district court abused its
discretion in including a cost-of-living adjustment to a step reduction
in his maintenance obligation and in requiring him to pay private school
tuition for the parties' child. Because the district court did not
abuse its discretion in including a cost-of-living adjustment to the
maintenance obligation and the district court did not abuse its
discretion in ordering appellant to pay for the child's private school
tuition, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1872

Glen R. Hinz, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

City of Lakeland,
Appellant.

WILLIS, Judge

Appellant city challenges the district court's grant of
summary judgment to respondent landowners, arguing that (1) a writ of
mandamus is an improper remedy to grant to landowners challenging the
denial of a zoning variance; (2) the city's denial of respondents'
variance application was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious; (3)
respondents' equal-protection claim fails as a matter of law because
they are not similarly situated to other landowners who were granted
variances; (4) no regulatory taking of respondents' lot occurred; and
(5) the district court erred by not requiring respondents to join their
neighbors as indispensable parties. We affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand.
 

 
 
 

  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.