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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2280

Mary Jo K. Gerring,
Appellant,

vs.

Virginia Gerring, et al.,
Respondents,

Gerring Properties, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,

Steven M. Gerring,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Mary Jo K. Gerring challenges the judgment
dismissing her claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and
replevin against respondents Gerring Properties, Inc., Martin T.
Gerring, Virginia Gerring, Steven M. Gerring, Mathew S. Gerring, and
Steven R. Gerring. Appellant also challenges the district court's
conclusion that respondents acted properly in turning over appellant's
shares of stock in response to a third-party levy. Because the district
court did not err in dismissing this action on the grounds of res
judicata and collateral estoppel or in concluding that the third-party
levy was valid, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2227

Valspar Refinish, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Gaylord's, Inc.,
a California corporation,
Appellant

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Gaylord's, Inc. challenges the district court's grant
of summary judgment for respondent Valspar Refinish, Inc. on its
breach-of-contract claim and against appellant on all of its
counterclaims. Appellant also contends that the district court erred by
failing to rule on or sustain its evidentiary objections to affidavits
submitted by respondent in support of its claim. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2064

In re the Marriage of:

Qingyan Chen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Zihong Zhao,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
In this dissolution appeal, appellant-husband challenges the
district court's rulings (1) failing to set off wife's award against
husband's award; (2) denying husband's motion for a new trial; (3)
declining to amend its original findings of facts as to specific assets
and debts; (3) awarding wife need-based attorney fees; and (5) making
findings about husband's bad faith and misconduct. We affirm as
modified.

= = = =

A06-2036
A06-2327

Howard Homes, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Keeler Stucco, Inc., et al.,
Defendants (A06-2036),
Keeler Stucco, Inc.,
Appellant (A06-2327),
Aaron Novak d/b/a Hi-Tech Custom Builders,
Appellant (A06-2036),
Aaron Novak d/b/a Hi-Tech Custom Builders, et al.,
Defendants (A06-2327).

STONEBURNER, Judge
In this consolidated appeal, appellant subcontractors challenge
the district court's declaratory judgment that indemnity agreements
contained in appellants' contracts with respondent general contractor
are valid and binding, obligating appellants to defend, indemnify, and
hold respondent harmless from all claims arising out of or in any way
relating to appellants' work. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1106

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
N.H. and R.G., Parents.

ROSS, Judge
Appellant father R.G. challenges the district court's order
terminating his parental rights to his daughter. This appeal requires
us to decide whether the district court abused its discretion when it
granted Blue Earth County's trial-day motion to amend its petition to
add to the previously stated bases to terminate parental rights. We
must also decide whether the record contains clear and convincing
evidence supporting the order to terminate R.G.'s parental rights.
Because R.G. was given virtually no notice of the county's amendment and
had no time to modify his defense, the county's amendment to the
petition should not have been allowed. Because the county made no
effort to reunify father and daughter, the record lacks clear and
convincing evidence supporting termination of R.G.'s parental rights.
We therefore reverse.

= = = =

A06-2215

Hypoguard USA, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company,
Appellant.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (St. Paul)
and its insureds, respondents Hypoguard USA, Inc., and Medisys USA, Inc.
(collectively Hypoguard), brought cross-motions for summary judgment to
resolve whether St. Paul had a duty to defend Hypoguard in a class
action brought against it. The district court determined that St. Paul
was obligated to defend Hypoguard, granted Hypoguard's motion, and
denied St. Paul's motion. Because we conclude that St. Paul has no duty
to defend Hypoguard in that action, we reverse the summary judgment
granted to Hypoguard and remand for entry of summary judgment for St.
Paul.


= = = =

A06-2374

Greg Toon, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Duluth Economic Development Authority, et al.,
Defendants,

Hansen's Auto Service,
Respondent.

PEN, Judge
Appellants Greg and Jane Toon dispute the district court's
summary judgment dismissing their adverse possession claim directed at a
strip of land adjoining their St. Louis County lot. Because the record
creates fact disputes that cannot be resolved by summary judgment, we
reverse and remand.

 

 
 
 

  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.