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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2124

In re the Marriage of:

James Edwin Robbins, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Deborah Jane Robbins,
n/k/a Deborah Jane Blowers,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
In this dissolution appeal appellant-husband argues
(a) the record does not support the district court's determination that
the homestead and business assets are items of marital property; (b) the
record does not support the finding of respondent-wife's income; (c) the
district court abused its discretion by forgiving certain pre-judgment
child support arrears; and (d) appellant should have been awarded
retroactive child support. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2091

Cheryl M. Koehnen,
Relator,

vs.

Titan Construction, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
Relator Cheryl M. Koehnen challenges her disqualification
from receiving unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct.
Relator argues that (a) her actions did not constitute employment
misconduct and (b) the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) refusal of her
request for an in-person hearing impacted her due process rights. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1705


In re the Marriage of:

Carmen Lillian Chappelear, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Robert Louis Chappelear,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
In this maintenance-modification dispute, appellant-wife argues
that the district court (a) erred by finding that respondent-husband
retired in good faith; (b) failed to make adequate findings to support
its grant of husband's motion to modify his maintenance obligation to
wife; and (c) improperly modified a portion of the property settlement
when it reduced the amount of insurance husband had to carry to secure
his maintenance obligation to wife. We affirm on all issues.

= = = =

A06-2223

Chippewa Valley Bean Company,
Respondent,

vs.

Green Meadow Bean Company,
Appellant.


HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from confirmation of an arbitration award, appellant
Green Meadow Bean Company argues that the district court erred in
confirming the arbitration award because the arbitrator did not have the
power to arbitrate a quality dispute and the arbitration award did not
draw its essence from the arbitration agreement. Because the arbitrator
did not exceed his power in arbitrating the parties' dispute and the
award draws its essence from the arbitration agreement, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2125

Tri-Buu Cat Thiem, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Polka Dot Dairy,
Appellant.


HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that the
district court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent terminated the
lease by implication. Because there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the district court did not err in applying the law, we affirm.

= = = =


A07-0948

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
S.B. and D.W., Parents.



WORKE, Judge
On appeal after a remand in which the district court terminated
appellant's parental rights, appellant argues that there was
insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental rights
and the finding that termination is in the child's best interests.
Because we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support both
the termination of appellant's parental rights and the determination
that termination is in the child's best interests, we affirm. The
motion to strike portions of respondent Hennepin County Human Services
and Public Health Department's brief on grounds that it contains
documents outside of the record on appeal is denied.

= = = =

A06-2348

Jason V. Levar,
Relator,

vs.

Zupancich Brothers Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
On certiorari appeal from the unemployment-law judge's
decision that relator was discharged for misconduct and disqualified
from receiving unemployment benefits, relator argues that his absence
from work should have been excused because he called in sick to care for
his ill fiancee. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2341

Holly L. Johnson,
Appellant,

vs.

Elk River Area School District, ISD No. 728,
Respondent,

Shauna L. Riveland,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant challenges summary judgment granted to respondents,
arguing that the district court erred in determining that the statute of
limitations had run on appellant's claim of sexual abuse. Because the
record clearly demonstrates that appellant knew of the abuse at least
six years before bringing her claim and that she did not suffer any
periods of insanity to toll the statute of limitations after reaching
majority, 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.