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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1002




KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Kristi Wells, formerly known as Kristi Stimpfl,
challenges the district court's order denying her request for an
evidentiary hearing and refusing to modify the custody of the parties'
children, who live with respondent Kurt Stimpfl. Appellant also argues
that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a change of
venue to Wright County, respondent's county of residence.
Because appellant failed to make a prima facie case for
modification of custody, and because the district court did not abuse
its discretion by ordering a change of venue, we affirm.

= = = =


A07-658



PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order terminating appellant father's
parental rights to his two youngest children, appellant argues that the
record lacks clear and convincing evidence that any of the alleged
statutory bases for termination exists. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-0738



STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant father challenges the involuntary termination of
parental rights to his son, arguing that the district court erroneously
vacated a previously accepted voluntary conditional consent to
termination of parental rights, and there is insufficient evidence to
support the district court's finding that he is palpably unfit to be a
parent. Under the unique procedural facts of this case, we conclude
that father's parental rights were terminated without conditions by a
final order based on father's consent, and the district court erred by
vacating father's voluntary termination of parental rights and
involuntarily terminating father's parental rights based on palpable
unfitness. We therefore affirm voluntary termination of father's
parental rights and vacate the order for involuntary termination.

= = = =

A06-1904



STONEBURNER, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment granted to respondent
school district, appellant, trustee for the next-of-kin of J.S., argues
that the district court erred in determining that (1) the school
district did not owe a duty to prevent J.S.'s suicide; (2) as a matter
of law, the conduct of the school district's employees did not cause
J.S's suicide; and (3) appellant's claims are barred by the doctrines of
official and vicarious-official immunity. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1884

Boyd D. Amsler, Jr.,
Relator,

vs.

Phoenix Medical Services, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges respondent Department of Employment and
Economic Development's decision that he was discharged from employment
for misconduct, disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits.
Relator argues that the evidence shows that he was discharged before his
employer became aware of his alleged misconduct and that the
determination that he committed misconduct should be vacated. Because
the record supports respondent's determination that relator was
discharged for misconduct, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-661
A07-662

In the Matter of the
Welfare of the Children of:
M.B. and J.B., Parents.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal in these consolidated
termination-of-parental-rights appeals, appellant-mother argues that the
record does not show that (a) she is a palpably unfit parent; and (b)
termination of her parental rights is in the children's best interests.
Appellant-father argues that (a) the record does not show that father is
a palpably unfit parent; and (b) the county failed to make any efforts
to reunite father and the children. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-851

In re the Marriage of:
Kim Gail Capra, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Mario R. Capra,
Appellant.

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the district court's decision to
modify the custody provision in the dissolution judgment and decree and
grant respondent-mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the
children, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by (1)
making findings that are unsupported by the evidence, and (2) declining
to follow the recommendations of independent professionals. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1437




ROSS, Judge
Richard Meggitt appeals from the district court's order modifying
child support and spousal maintenance. When Meggitt and Beth Arneson's
marriage dissolved in 1993, they stipulated that Meggitt would pay
Arneson child support until June 2006, the time when they expected the
younger of their two sons to graduate from high school. They also
agreed to an amount of spousal maintenance that Meggitt would pay, which
would increase at that same point of graduation. In September 2005
Meggitt moved to modify child support. The child support magistrate
ordered Meggitt to pay only part of the monthly support obligation, with
the balance accruing as arrears. The district court reviewed the
magistrate's order and extended Meggitt's duty to pay child support for
one year to correspond with the modified graduation date of the younger
son. The court also postponed the spousal-maintenance increase until
that same date. The parties challenge different aspects of the district
court's decision. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion by extending child support or by leaving the overall support
obligation intact, and because Arneson did not file a notice of review,
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.