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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1659

Henry L. Woodruff,
Appellant,

vs.

Cal Ludeman, et al.,
Respondents.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Pro se appellant Henry Woodruff, a residential patient of
the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, challenges the district court's
dismissal of his complaint against respondents for failure to state a
claim. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2287

Lori L. Schuna,
Relator,

vs.

Reynolds and Reynolds Partnership,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MAKER, Judge
Relator argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) improperly
denied her request for reconsideration, which was postmarked 31 days
after the ULJ mailed to relator the decision concluding that she was
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because of employment
misconduct. Because the relator failed to meet the statutory deadline
for her request, the ULJ had no jurisdiction to consider it. We affirm.


= = = =

A07-0164

Pofabe Development Corporation,
Appellant,

vs.

Ra SM, Inc. d/b/a Once Upon a Child, et al.,
Respondents.


STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant, a commercial landlord, challenges summary judgment
dismissing its claim against respondent tenant for anticipatory
repudiation of a commercial lease. The district court held that the
tenant's notice of intent to continue the lease did not constitute a
binding agreement because the lease contained a renewal option that
could only be effected by the parties executing a new lease. Because
the district court determined that there was no renewal, it did not
reach appellant's argument that the guarantor of the original lease was
liable for damages caused by breach of the renewed lease. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1387

In the Matter of the Welfare of Children of: G.A.H. and M.A.K., Parents

MINGE, Judge
Appellant G.A.H. challenges the termination of her parental
rights, claiming that the county failed to provide her with services and
sufficient time for reunification with her children. Because
termination was based on egregious harm and the county made a prima
facie showing of egregious harm at the outset of the proceeding, the
district court did not err in suspending reunification efforts. We
affirm.

= = = =

A07-1328

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

MINGE, Judge
Appellant challenges the termination of his parental rights
pursuant to Minn. Stat.
? 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6) (2006), regarding egregious harm to a child
occurring while in the parent's care. He argues that the evidence that
he caused egregious harm to his child was insufficient to meet the
requirements of the statutes, that his admissions were both inadequate
to support termination and coerced, that the district court's findings
regarding the best interests of his children were based on insufficient
evidence, and that his substantive due process rights were violated. We
affirm.

= = = =

A07-993

In re the Matter of: Joseph Michael Krznarich,
Respondent,

vs.

Kathleen Ann Freeman,
Appellant.

MINGE, Judge
Appellant mother challenges the denial of her motions for a new trial
and for amended findings in a case awarding sole legal and physical
custody of their child to respondent father. Appellant claims that the
district court improperly failed to consider additional evidence, abused
its discretion in determining custody, conducted the custody proceedings
improperly, and erred by requiring her to pay child support. We affirm.


= = = =

A06-1847

Frank Howard, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

John Webb, et al.,
Appellants,

BDP Architects, et al.,
Defendants.

MINGE, Judge
Appellant developer challenges the district court's denial
of his motion for a new trial. That denial upheld a jury verdict and
resulting judgment that awarded respondent investors damages for fraud
and found that appellant was not entitled to damages on his counterclaim
for slander of title. Appellant claims that the opening argument by
counsel for respondent investors, along with the district court's
rulings excluding evidence of settlement offers and permitting certain
questioning, constituted prejudicial and reversible errors. Respondents
appeal the jury-verdict determinations and the resulting judgment based
on those determinations as irreconcilable. Because we conclude that the
district court's evidentiary rulings were neither erroneous nor an abuse
of discretion and that the jury's determinations are reconcilable, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1979

In re: Guardianship of Herbert D. Emswiler, Ward

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant-ward challenges (1) the district court's conclusion that
he requires a guardian, (2) the comprehensive grant of the statutory
powers to his guardian, and (3) the appointment of his daughter to serve
as his guardian. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-1690

David Ness, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

County of Crow Wing, et al.,
Respondents.

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant property owners challenge respondent county's
denial of their application for a construction permit. Appellants argue
that (1) respondent's decision was arbitrary and capricious and violated
its own zoning ordinance; (2) the district court erroneously failed to
consider trial testimony relevant to the arbitrary and capricious nature
of respondent's decision; (3) denying their application for a
construction permit and granting their neighbor's application violated
the constitutional guarantees of equal protection; and (4) the zoning
ordinance on which respondent based its decision operated as an
unconstitutional taking of their property. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-116

In re the Marriage of:
Michelle L. Hall, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Steven M. Hall,
Appellant.

DIETZEN, Judge
In this marital-dissolution proceeding, appellant husband
challenges the district court order awarding the federal income tax
exemptions for the parties' three minor children to respondent wife,
arguing that the district court erred on the grounds that appellant has
the greater income and contributes a greater amount of money to the
children's support. Because the district court properly applied the law
and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2292

Emily Marie Beyersdorf Johnson,
Respondent,

vs.

Farm Bureau Insurance Company,
Respondent,

Clarendon National Insurance Company,
Appellant.

DIETZEN, Judge
Appellant Clarendon National Insurance Company (Clarendon)
challenges the district court order granting summary judgment in favor
of respondent Farm Bureau Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), arguing that
the district court erred in concluding that Clarendon's liability policy
provided the second layer of coverage and that Farm Bureau's umbrella
policy provided excess coverage. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2221

Paul T. Czerniak,
Relator,

vs.

ATK Ordnance & Ground Systems, LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

DIETZEN, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision
of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was discharged for
employment misconduct and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving
benefits, arguing that his tardiness did not constitute misconduct.
Because the ULJ properly applied the law and did not abuse his
discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-1882
A07-652

In Re Application of Locust Hills Development, LLC

DIETZEN, Judge
In this consolidated certiorari proceeding, relators
challenge the decisions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(the LMCD) Board of Directors granting a multiple dock license to
respondent Locust Hills Development, LLC in 2006 and 2007, arguing that
the decisions of the board were based on errors of law and were
otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial
evidence. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2077

In the Matter of the Request to Change Non-duty
Disability Benefits to Duty Related Disability Benefits of Edward Kunze,
Relator,

vs.

Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota, Board of Trustees,
Respondent.


ROSS, Judge
Edward Kunze brings this certiorari appeal from the Public
Employees Retirement Association's decision that his coronary-related
disability did not directly result from his employment as a [police
officer] for the City of White Bear Lake. Because the association did
not determine whether Kunze's disability was duty-related or
non-duty-related when he applied for disability benefits in 1995 and the
association's 2006 decision based on its review of his file did not
consider all relevant evidence, we reverse and remand for further
consideration.

= = = =

A06-2058

Larry Rasmusson,
Appellant,

vs.

STEN Corporation and Aspen Surgical Products, Inc.,
Respondents.

ROSS, Judge
Larry Rasmusson, former chief executive officer of STEN, Inc.,
appeals from summary judgment on his breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims brought against STEN and Aspen Surgical Products, Inc.
Rasmusson alleged that STEN and Aspen violated the license agreement
between Rasmusson and STEN that entitled Rasmusson to royalties for
STEN's sales of certain disposable medical products designed by
Rasmusson and listed in the agreement. STEN sold all product inventory
to Aspen, paid Rasmusson royalties for those sales, and left the
medical-products business altogether. Aspen did not pay Rasmusson any
royalties on its resale of those products or for its sale of identical
products that Aspen later manufactured. Because Rasmusson cannot
establish on the undisputed evidence that STEN breached the license
agreement or that Aspen assumed any royalty obligations, we affirm
summary judgment


= = = =

A07-0804

Noel J. Smith,
Appellant,

vs.

PACCAR Financial Corp.,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant Noel Smith filed this lawsuit to clear title to a
truck he purchased from Ronald Francis, who is not a party to this
action. The district court entered summary judgment against Smith,
ruling that, because the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act
prohibited the court's recognition of Smith's title to the truck,
respondent PACCAR Financial Corp. has the right to possess and sell the
truck. The district court also denied Smith's motion to dismiss for
failure to join Francis, who Smith claims is a necessary party.
We conclude that the district court correctly determined
that PACCAR is entitled to possess and sell the truck and that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith's motion to
dismiss. Although the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act
does not prohibit recognition of Smith's title to the truck,[1] we
conclude that summary judgment was warranted because Smith did not raise
a genuine issue as to Francis's default or the validity of PACCAR's
security interest. We therefore 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.