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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2019
A06-2361


Calm Waters, LLC,
Appellant (A06-2019)
Relator (A06-2361),

vs.

Kanabec County Board of Commissioners, et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
In this consolidated proceeding, appellant/relator Calm
Waters, LLC, through a direct appeal, challenges the denial by the
district court of its petition for a writ of mandamus and, through a
certiorari appeal, challenges the denial of its preliminary plat
application by respondent Kanabec County Planning Commission. Because
the county[1] failed to approve or deny Calm Waters's preliminary plat
application within 60 days after the filing of the written request, we
reverse the district court's decision and hold that the application is
approved by operation of law under Minn. Stat. ? 15.99, subd. 2(a)
(2006). In light of this decision, we dismiss the certiorari challenge
as moot.

= = = =

A06-1844



KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Dean C. Suneson sued respondent Northern Tool and
Equipment Company for age discrimination after respondent terminated his
employment. On appeal from a grant of summary judgment to respondent,
appellant argues that the district court erred in determining that (1)
there were no genuine issues of material fact; (2) appellant failed to
establish a prima facie case of age discrimination; and (3) respondent's
proffered reason for terminating appellant was not a pretext for
discrimination. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1911

Ronald W. Schultenover,
Relator,

vs.

I.G., Incorporated,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
This appeal is from the decision of an unemployment law judge that
relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he
quit his employment at a staffing service employer. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1990

Thomas Labore,
Appellant,

vs.

J. P. Morgan Chase Bank,
Defendant,

Shapiro and Nordmeyer, LLP,
Respondent,

Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment to respondents,
arguing that the district court erred by determining that the
foreclosure of appellant's property was lawful and that respondents did
not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1063



DIETZEN, Judge
Appellant mother challenges the district court order
terminating her parental rights, arguing that the district court erred
in finding that appellant failed to rebut the presumption that she was
palpably unfit and finding that reasonable efforts had failed to correct
the conditions leading to the child's placement. Because the district
court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we
affirm.


= = = =

A06-2056



HARTEN, Judge
Appellants Kathleen and Thomas Morris owned 40% of the stock
of respondent Propack Sales, Inc. (Propack); respondents Judith and C.
Stephen Trotter owned another 40%. The Morrises brought this action
against Propack and the Trotters, alleging that the Trotters breached
the settlement agreement that had resolved the Morrises' previous
lawsuit against them. On appeal, the Morrises argue that the district
court abused its discretion in dismissing the Trotters from the lawsuit
and in granting judgment to Propack, following a bench trial, on the
Morrises' claims for attorney fees and possession of a vehicle owned by
Propack. Because we see no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the
Trotters and no error in the district court's judgment, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-465

Jerry D. Hess, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

City of Fergus Falls,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary
judgment to respondent city, arguing that the district court erred by
determining that the city had a rational basis for vacating the northern
321.22 feet of a public-road right of way. Appellants argue also that
the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to
compel discovery. 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.