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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1648

Caroline M. Rice, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Brent R. Rice,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this marital dissolution, appellant wife argues that the district
court abused its discretion by (1) awarding respondent husband sole
physical custody of three of the parties' children, (2) denying her
motion for a continuance and (3) awarding her insufficient attorney
fees. Appellant also argues that this court should vacate the property
award made in the dissolution judgment. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-2231

Brenda F. Reed,
Relator,

vs.

Pinnacle Financial Group, Inc.,
Respondent, and

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
Brenda Reed appeals the decision of the Department of Employment and
Economic Development denying her request for unemployment benefits after
Reed was discharged from employment for leaving work early in violation
of her employer's procedure requiring written requests for time off from
work. Because the unemployment law judge's finding that Reed's
unapproved early departure from work is supported by the record and
constitutes employment misconduct, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2367

Cy Edmonta B.Wilson,
Relator,

vs.

Ikea Burbank,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator, Cy Edmonta B. Wilson, challenges
the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) disqualifying her from
receiving unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct. Because
we conclude that the record reasonably supports the ULJ's final decision
and relator's conduct constituted employment misconduct, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2368


In re the Marriage of:
Thomas Eugene Broome, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Sandra Marie Wedmann, f/k/a
Sandra Marie Broome, f/k/a
Sandra Marie Lambrecht,
Respondent.


HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the modification of his monthly
child-support obligation on the grounds that the child-support
magistrate (CSM) erred by not applying the Hortis/Valento formula and
because the CSM did not make the factual findings necessary to justify
this deviation. Because we conclude that the proper findings were not
made, we reverse and remand.
= = = =
A06-2384
John B. Erickson,
Relator,

vs.

Jackson Landscape,
Respondent, and

Department of Employment and Economic Development
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
John Erickson's employer discharged him because he failed to obtain a
required driver's license and because he used company vehicles without
authority. Erickson challenges an unemployment law judge's decision
that he lacked good cause for failing to appear at the evidentiary
hearing at which he could have presented evidence to the Department of
Employment and Economic Development relevant to his claim for
unemployment benefits, and that he therefore was not entitled to another
evidentiary hearing. Erickson also challenges the unemployment law
judge's decision that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because
the unemployment law judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the
request for a second hearing and his determination of misconduct is
supported by substantial evidence in the record and is a correct
application of law, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2465

Nadene Lynch,
Relator,

vs.

Wal-Mart Associates Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
On writ of certiorari, relator challenges an unemployment law
judge's decision that relator was properly disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. Relator argues that she is entitled to
unemployment benefits because she had good reason caused by her employer
to quit. Because relator's employer offered termination with severance
pay and altered every component of relator's employment, all to her
disadvantage, we reverse.
= = = =
A07-0020

Metro Paving, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Michael Luedeman, et al.,
Respondents

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's entry of judgment
after remand, arguing that our previous decision on appeal was clearly
erroneous. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0082

Jennifer Susan Kline, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Jennifer Susan Kline challenges the district court's
order sustaining the revocation of her driving license, arguing that the
officer who stopped her acted illegally. Because we conclude that the
officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion for stopping appellant,
we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0105, A07-0107, A07-0108

City of Lonsdale, Minnesota,

Respondent (A07-105, A07-108),
Appellant (A07-107)

vs.

NewMech Companies, Inc., et al.,
defendants and third-party plaintiffs,

Respondents (A07-105, A07-107),
Appellants (A07-108),

vs.

BNR Excavating, Inc.,

Appellant (A07-105),
Third-Party Defendant (A07-107),
Respondent (A07-108).

WRIGHT, Judge
This is a consolidated appeal in which each party challenges a
different aspect of the district court's judgment. After a bench trial,
the district court found that general contractor NewMech Companies, Inc.
(NewMech) breached a bidding contract with the City of Lonsdale (city)
and was liable for the amount of the bid bond but that subcontractor BNR
Excavating, Inc., (BNR) was liable to NewMech for one-half that amount.
The city challenges the measure of damages for NewMech's breach, arguing
that the district court misconstrued the contract. NewMech challenges
its liability for the breach, arguing that the district court
erroneously found that it failed to prove its unilateral-mistake
defense. NewMech also challenges the measure of BNR's third-party
liability, arguing that the district court erred by finding that
NewMech's conduct contributed to the breach of its contract with the
city. Finally, BNR challenges its third-party liability to NewMech,
arguing that the evidence does not support the district court's finding
that NewMech justifiably relied on its subcontractor bid. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-124

Jeffery Scott Sather and Anne Valerie Moon Sather,
for themselves and on behalf of their minor children,
Margaret A. Moon Sather, Preston J. Sather and Lowell J. Moon Sather,
Appellants,

vs.

Vincent W. King, et al.,
Respondents.

ROSS, Judge
This appeal concerns the district court's summary judgment decision
dismissing a legal malpractice claim that arises from Respondent Vincent
King's representation of appellants Jeffrey and Anne Sather. King
represented the Sathers in their claims against State Farm Insurance
Company for coverage of mold damage. The Sathers contend that King was
negligent by failing to discover a State Farm operations manual, which
the Sathers argue would have established coverage for their claims, and
by failing to argue that a "resulting loss exception" in their
homeowners' policy provided for coverage of the claims. Because we
conclude that the policy unambiguously did not provide coverage of the
Sathers' mold claims, we hold that King was not negligent in failing to
discover the manual for use as extrinsic evidence of the policy's
interpretation. Because King did argue that the policy's resulting loss
exception applied, we hold that King cannot be found negligent for
failing to raise the argument. Finally, because the Sathers do not show
that but for King's actions they would have prevailed in their claims
against State Farm, they do not meet the elements of proof for their
legal malpractice claim, and we affirm.
= = = =
A07-232

Neng Por Yang,
Appellant,

vs.

Terry Nutter,
Defendant,

Minneapolis Police Department,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Pro se appellant alleges that the district court erred by
granting respondent City of Minneapolis's motion for summary judgment.
Because the district court properly applied the law, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0686

In re the Marriage of:

Kenneth Roland Olson, Sr., petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Sharon Ann Olson,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
This appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment raises the
single issue of whether the district court abused its discretion when it
determined Kenneth Olson's ability to pay spousal maintenance by
averaging his income over a four-year period instead of calculating it
based on the first six months of the dissolution year. Because the
record establishes that the cyclical nature of the mortgage industry
causes fluctuations in Kenneth Olson's income from his employment as a
mortgage lender, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
averaging his income, and we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1349


In re the Marriage of:
Mark William Carroll, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Desiree Lucille Boeltl,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges a district court order modifying her
parenting time and child-support obligation. Appellant also challenges
the district court's refusal to award judgment for her as a result of
her overpayment of child support. We affirm as modified.
 

 
 
 

  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.