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





In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Willie Arthur Mosby, Jr
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually
dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality, Willie Arthur
Mosby, Jr., argues that the evidence does not establish the standards
for commitment and that the commitment statutes are unconstitutional as
applied to him. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the
district court's order for indeterminate commitment and the statutes
were constitutionally applied to appellant, we affirm.

= = = =


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Adam Leroy Meyer

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Adam Leroy Meyer challenges the order for his
indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Because
the evidence supports his commitment, because we see no error in the
finding that there is no less-restrictive alternative or in the adoption
of the state's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and because we
see no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant's motion to
sequester witnesses or in reopening the trial to take additional
evidence, we affirm.

= = = =


In re the Marriage of:

Denise Joan Conlin, petitioner,


Peter Joseph Conlin,

On appeal in this child-support-modification proceeding,
appellant-father argues that (a) this court's prior rulings stating that
district courts review a child support magistrate's (CSM's)
determinations de novo are incorrect; and (b) even if the district court
reviews a CSM's ruling de novo, reversal is required here because the
district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to
modify his child-support obligation. Because the district court abused
its discretion in failing to conclude that the substantial change in
circumstances rendered the previous child-support obligation
unreasonable and unfair, we reverse and remand.

= = = =


Jose F. Ponce d/b/a Mi Pueblito,


City of St. Paul,

On appeal from a revocation of his mobile food vehicle
license, relator Jose Ponce argues: (1) the city acted arbitrarily and
capriciously by basing its decision to revoke his license on an
erroneous interpretation of city and state law; and (2) the city
violated relator's due-process rights by revoking his license without
providing sufficient notice of the grounds for revocation. We reverse.

= = = =


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Scott Wilton Lentz.
Appellant challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous
person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the
commitment; that the district court erred when, after a review hearing,
it continued appellant's commitment as a sexually dangerous person; and
that his commitment violates his right against double jeopardy. We

= = = =


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Isaiah Charles Swedeen.
Appellant challenges his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous
person (SDP), arguing that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support
the commitment and (2) the district court erred by applying an incorrect
standard for the SDP commitment. We affirm.

= = = =


Independent School District
No. 281, Robbinsdale, Minnesota,


Minnesota Department of Education,
Relator Independent School District No. 281 (the district)
appeals from an order issued by respondent Minnesota Department of
Education (the department), concluding that the district violated
Minnesota law by (1) failing to provide written notice to parents before
cancelling the provision of developmental-adapted-physical-education
(DAPE) swimming and before revising the individualized education
programs (IEP) of certain students; (2) unilaterally cancelling DAPE
swimming without considering the unique special needs of each student,
thereby failing to ensure the provision of a free appropriate public
education (FAPE); (3) requiring student number 15 to pay for his DAPE
swimming during the 2005-06 school year; and (4) failing to make a
good-faith effort to assist 31 (of 37) students to achieve the goals and
objectives listed in their IEPs related to DAPE swimming. The
department's decision required the district to take the following
corrective action: (1) provide compensatory swimming instruction to all
31 students for instruction missed during the 2005-06 school year; (2)
provide swimming instruction during the 2006-07 school year; and (3)
notify parents of the change in their children's IEPs.
The district argues that the department acted arbitrarily and
capriciously and erred by (1) concluding that a single complaining
parent had authority to seek individual educational relief on behalf of
non-complaining parents and their children; (2) failing to accord any
weight to the fact that parents met with school officials and consented
to the removal of DAPE swimming from their children's IEPs; (3)
concluding that the district could not discontinue DAPE swimming without
considering individual student needs. The district also argues that the
department violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) because it did not review all relevant information during its
investigation and did not complete its investigation and issue a
decision in a timely manner. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1230, A06-1231, A07-478

The Crest Group Incorporated,
Appellant (A06-1230, A07-478),
Plaintiff (A06-1231),


Deloitte & Touche, LLP,
defendant and third-party plaintiff,
Respondent (A06-1230, A07-478),
Appellant (A06-1231),


Forward Technology Industries, Inc.,
Third-Party Defendant (A06-1230),
Respondent (A06-1231),
Appellant (A07-478).
'HUDSON, Judge
This court consolidated three appeals involving the same parties
and arising out of the same transactions.
A06-1230 (Crest v. Deloitte: Negligent Misrepresentation)
The Crest Group, Inc. (Crest), acquired Forward Technologies, Inc.
(FTI), in 2000 for million, calculated after Crest reviewed an audit
of FTI's financial statements prepared by Deloitte & Touche, LLP
(Deloitte). According to Crest, based on FTI's actual financial data,
Crest overpaid by million when it acquired FTI. Crest brought an
action against Deloitte for negligent misrepresentation. Deloitte moved
for summary judgment on the ground that it had no duty to Crest; that
motion was denied. After a jury found no overstatement of FTI's
operating profits, the district court concluded there had been no
negligent misrepresentation. Crest moved for a new trial or for
judgment as a matter of law (JAML).[1] That motion was denied, and Crest
appealed (A06-1230). Because evidence supports the jury's verdict,
because we see no abuse of discretion in the jury instructions or the
special-verdict questions, and because the record refutes the allegation
of judicial bias, we affirm.[2]
A06-1231 (Deloitte v. FTI: Indemnification)
Deloitte brought an action for indemnification against FTI based
on a contractual agreement between them for legal fees and expenses
incurred in defending the Crest negligent-misrepresentation lawsuit.
The jury found that FTI had made material misrepresentations to
Deloitte, and the district court entered judgment requiring FTI to
indemnify Deloitte. FTI moved for JAML; the district court granted its
motion, vacated the judgment, and entered judgment for FTI. Deloitte
appealed (A06-1231). Because the evidence supports the jury's verdict,
we reverse the JAML for FTI.
A07-478 (Crest and FTI v. Deloitte: Costs)
The district court entered an amended order for taxation of costs
that reduced the award of costs against Deloitte in the
negligent-misrepresentation case to the statutory minimum and, after
Deloitte requested leave to petition for reconsideration, reversed an
erroneous deduction from the costs awarded to Deloitte. Crest and FTI
appeal from these determinations (A07-478). Because our reversal of the
JAML granted to FTI eliminates the award of costs in favor of FTI and
against Deloitte, that issue is moot. Because we see no violation of
Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11 in the district court's correction of its
erroneous deduction, we affirm the costs awarded to Deloitte and against

= = = =


Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Gaming Enterprise,
Plaintiff (A06-1880), Appellant (A06-1934),

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gaming Commission,
Appellant (A06-1880),


Leonard Prescott, individually, and as current and
former officer and/or director of Little Six, Inc.,
WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the denial of a motion to quash subpoenas directed
to members of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Gaming Commission following
the docketing of a judgment by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Tribal Court in state district court, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Gaming Enterprise argues that (1) official immunity precludes the
commissioners from testifying, (2) federal law preempts a collateral
attack on the commission's decision, and (3) sovereign immunity
precludes the subpoenas and there has been no waiver of that immunity.
Because official immunity precludes the commissioners from testifying,
we reverse. The motion to strike is granted with the exception of a
letter that is part of the district-court record.

= = = =


In re the Marriage of:

Marcia M. Martinez, petitioner,


Michael L. Martinez,
ROSS, Judge

In this appeal from an order addressing multiple motions following
entry of a marital-dissolution judgment, Michael Martinez argues that
the district court erred by denying, deferring, or failing to rule on
his motions. He also challenges the imposition of attorney fees and a
condition requiring him to pay the fees before the district court will
accept future motions from him. Because the district court did not rule
on Martinez's motions directed to the county and imposed too broad of a
condition limiting future motions, we remand on those issues. But
because Martinez failed to adequately brief his asserted errors, we deem
the other matters waived and affirm the district court.


  What day were you injured?

  / /

  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall

  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

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement

I accepted a settlement

  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.