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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1076


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Shannon Patrick Donald
English.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Shannon Patrick Donald English challenges his
indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Because
clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the conclusion that
appellant meets the standards for commitment, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-998


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joseph Jose Thompson

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Joseph Jose Thompson challenges his commitment to the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) on the ground that it is not the
least restrictive alternative. Because the district court's
determination that the MSOP is the least restrictive alternative is not
clearly erroneous, we affirm.
= = = =

A07-89


The Estate of: Theodore B. Nistler,
Decedent.

LANSING, Judge
On appeal following remand, the heirs of Theodore Nistler
challenge the district court's order granting a decree of descent that
assigns each of them a one-fifth interest in the redemption rights to
Nistler's former homestead. The heirs' principal argument is that the
district court failed to comply with the remand instructions. The
district court's determination of descent necessarily took into account
an intervening sheriff's execution sale of the estate's sole asset, and
the descent decree is not inconsistent with the remand instructions.
Because the remaining challenges provide no basis for reversal, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1784

In re the Marriage of:

Nancy Marie Wickhem,
f/k/a Nancy Marie Jernberg, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

David Damon Wickhem,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Nancy Marie Wickhem challenges the district
court's amended dissolution judgment and decree of July 28, 2006,
arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion in its
valuation of personal property; (2) the district court abused its
discretion in awarding spousal maintenance because it (a) failed to
account for respondent's annual bonuses; (b) improperly imputed income
to appellant; (c) erred in determining appellant's ability to support
herself; and (d) erred by divesting itself of jurisdiction to hear
future motions to modify spousal maintenance; (3) the district court
abused its discretion by not requiring respondent to secure his
spousal-maintenance obligation with life insurance; (4) the district
court abused its discretion by refusing to award need-based attorney
fees; and (5) the district court erred by failing to apply the new
statutory cap for child support. We affirm the distribution of personal
property and the refusal to require life insurance, and we reverse and
remand the spousal-maintenance and child-support awards and the refusal
to award need-based attorney fees.

= = = =

A06-1994

Christine L. Rannow,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment law judge
that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because
she was not available for suitable employment due to medical and
transportation problems and because she was not actively seeking
suitable employment. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2200

In re the Support of:
Cherrin B. Burgland
n/k/a Cherrin B. Godak, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Duane A. Erwin,
Appellant.


HUDSON, Judge
In this child-support dispute, pro-se appellant-father argues that
(1) the foreign decree setting his support obligation was improperly
registered in Minnesota and the registration deprived him of due process
of law; (2) he had a valid defense to the registration of the foreign
decree in Minnesota; (3) the Minnesota district court should have
allowed him to challenge the jurisdiction of the foreign court to issue
the decree in question; (4) the district court misapplied the doctrines
of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and (5) the district court
should have granted him a "new trial." Because the district court did
not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2090

Elinor L. Jackson,
Relator,

vs.

Global Marketing Opportunities Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator, the owner and employee of a consulting business,
challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ's) decision that she was
not eligible for benefits because she did not submit the proper form in
2004 that would have made her eligible to receive unemployment benefits.
She argues that this was a good-faith mistake that she and her
accountant made because they were confused about whether the form was
required. Because the record shows that relator did not, after being
notified, file the election form required by statute in order to remain
in the unemployment-compensation system, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1771

Todd Unger,
Appellant,

vs.

County of Dodge, et al.,
Respondents.

WRIGHT, Judge

On appeal from summary judgment in a mandamus action challenging
the denial of a conditional use permit (CUP), appellant-applicant argues
that the district court erred in determining that (1) respondent-county
complied with Minn. Stat. ? 15.99 (2006), (2) the board of adjustment's
action was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, (3) appellant
failed to raise a valid promissory- or equitable-estoppel claim, (4)
respondent's ordinance is not void for vagueness, and (5) appellant
failed to raise a valid takings claim. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2023

Nancy Heinonen,
Relator,

vs.

Student Experience LLC
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
Nancy Heinonen challenges an unemployment law judge's
determination that she quit her employment with Student Experience LLC
and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We
must decide whether the employment ended on a quit or a discharge.
Because Student Experience's statements to Heinonen would lead a
reasonable employee to believe that she was no longer qualified to
continue as an employee of Student Experience, the termination was a
discharge, and we reverse.

= = = =

A06-1769


HARTEN, Judge
Appellants, real estate brokers, challenge the district
court's dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) of their action for a
commission. Because Minn. Stat. ? 82.18 (2004) applies to this action
and provides that a broker may not bring an action for a commission
without a written agreement and appellants had no written agreement, we
affirm the dismissal.
 

 
 
 

  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.