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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1414

Amy Lisa Haag,
Respondent,

vs.

Jonathan Richard Jacklitch,
Appellant

ROSS, Judge
Jonathan Jacklitch appeals the district court's denial of his motion to
modify custody of the parties' minor child, K.J., without an evidentiary
hearing. Because Jacklitch did not make a prima facie showing to
support his motion for endangerment-based modification of custody, we
affirm.
= = = =
A07-0683

Rachael Lundquist,
Appellant,

vs.

Rice Memorial Hospital,
Respondent.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Appellant was discharged from her position as a nurse at Rice
Memorial Hospital after she sustained a neck injury and filed a workers'
compensation claim. After appellant presented her evidence at trial,
the district court dismissed her claim for retaliatory discharge.
Because the district court properly determined that appellant was being
discharged for being unable to perform her job and that she failed to
establish that she was discharged in retaliation for filing for workers'
compensation benefits, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0539

Vanessa Dawn Moore,
Relator,

vs.

Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Vanessa Dawn Moore appeals from the Commissioner of
Human Services' denial of her request to reconsider her disqualification
from working in any position allowing direct contact with individuals
receiving services from certain state-licensed facilities. Relator
argues that the commissioner erred in denying her request because (1)
the predicate conviction on which her disqualification is based is ten
years old; (2) the disqualification has caused her financial hardship;
(3) she has proven that she does not pose a risk of harm; and (4) her
former employer is eager to have her return to work. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0386

Dean Gary Sternhagen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Dean Gary Sternhagen challenges the district court's
order upholding the cancellation of his driver's license for his
violation of the requirement that he totally abstain from alcohol.
Appellant argues that the Commissioner of Public Safety presented
insufficient evidence to support the cancellation where appellant (1)
presented testimony that he did not consume alcohol; (2) did not admit
to consuming alcohol; and (3) was not tested for alcohol consumption.
We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0368

Makiya K. Bunisso,
Relator,

vs.

Masterson Personnel, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ)
that relator is not entitled to unemployment benefits because she quit
her employment by failing to contact respondent after the job to which
it had assigned her was completed. Because the "Assignment Request
Policy" notice that respondent presented to relator did not conform to
Minn. Stat. ? 268.095, subd. 2(d) (2004), we reverse.
= = = =
A07-0207

D.R. Horton, Inc.-Minnesota,
a Delaware corporation,
Appellant

vs.

Frederick Radintz, et al.,
Respondents,

Carla Manuel, et al.,
Respondents.

WRIGHT, Judge
This appeal involves a contract dispute between appellant D.R. Horton,
Inc. and numerous individually named respondents, collectively the
"sellers." After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district
court found that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract, D.R.
Horton failed to properly exercise its option to purchase the sellers'
land. D.R. Horton challenges the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the sellers, arguing that the district court
misconstrued unambiguous contract language. We reverse and remand.
= = = =
A07-200

Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Gabbert & Gabbert Company, L. P.,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this commercial-lease dispute, appellant argues
that (1) the district court's reading of the parties' lease to allow
respondent to subtract real property from the shopping-center tract is
inconsistent with the lease terms and rules of contract interpretation;
and (2) the district court's conclusion that appellant failed to show
sufficient harm for a permanent injunction is inconsistent with the
court's findings of fact. Because the district court did not err in
interpreting the lease, and the findings of fact adequately support the
conclusion and denial of a permanent injunction, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-182

The Travelers Indemnity Company, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Bloomington Steel and Supply Company, et al.,
Defendants,
Jose Padilla,
Appellant.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to
respondents, claiming that fact issues preclude summary judgment and
that the district court erred in its application of the law.
Respondents have moved to strike portions of appellant's brief and
appendix, to strike a statement made by appellant's counsel at oral
argument, and for attorney fees. We affirm, grant respondents' motion
to strike portions of appellant's brief and appendix, find it
unnecessary to rule on their motion to strike a statement made at oral
argument, and deny their motion for attorney fees.
= = = =
A07-155

Lester Building Systems, a division
of Butler Manufacturing Company, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation,
Appellant.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant-manufacturer claims that the district court should
have ruled that, as a matter of law, respondents-sellers were not
entitled to recover damages for the cost to repair buildings belonging
to respondents' customers when those customers had already settled with
the manufacturer. Because Minnesota law does not permit repair-cost
damages under these circumstances, we reverse the jury's .2 million
repair-cost award.
= = = =
A07-147

In re: The Estate of James L. Peka,
In re: The Conservatorship of April Marie Peka,
In re: The Matter of the Trust Created by the Last Will and Testament
of:
James L. Peka Dated May 11, 2004

ROSS, Judge
This appeal involves the district court's construction of a will that
expressly forbids appellant Debra Peka and her mother from ever residing
in testator James Peka's home. The will left all of James Peka's
property in trust for his and Debra Peka's daughter. Debra Peka, whose
marriage to James Peka ended before his death, twice tried to purchase
the home, once personally and once in her capacity as her daughter's
conservator. She also tried to compel her daughter's trust to begin
making child-support payments due from the estate. The district court
prohibited both attempted home purchases and refused to compel the trust
to make child-support payments. The district court also disqualified
the conservatorship's attorney because it found a conflict of interest
between the conservatorship's attorney and Debra Peka's personal
attorney, who are partners in the same law firm. Because the will bars
the sale of the home to Debra Peka, and because James Peka's
social-security benefits cover his estate's child-support obligation, we
affirm the district court's judgment regarding the financial dispute.
We also affirm the district court's conflict-based disqualification of
the conservatorship's attorney.
= = = =
A07-0127

Pamela J. Shackleford,
Relator,

vs.

Contingent Work Force Solutions LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge
(ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits
because she had been discharged for misconduct for falsifying her time
sheets, arguing that she acted pursuant to her supervisor's directions
and contending that the ULJ was unfair. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-2418

Kimberly A. Mosman as successor to Wayne L. Mosman, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Lindquist & Vennum, P. L. L. P., et al.,
Respondents.

WRIGHT, Judge
In this appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment in
favor of respondents, appellants argue that (1) the district court erred
by applying the "but for" causation legal standard in a case alleging
transactional legal malpractice; (2) even if the district court applied
the correct legal standard, there are genuine issues of material fact as
to "but for" causation; (3) the district court abused its discretion by
denying appellants' motion to expedite the trial; and (4) the district
court abused its discretion by awarding costs and disbursements to
respondents. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-2416

Wendy Lea Ringwelski, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's decision sustaining the
revocation of her driving privileges after her DWI arrest, arguing that
the district court erred by finding that the police officer did not
interfere with her right to an additional test of her alcohol
concentration. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-2360

In re the Marriage of:
Jeanette Juana Dalseth,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Stephen Errol Dalseth,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellant Jeanette Dalseth challenges the district court order
denying her motion to compel discovery responses, arguing that the
statute of limitations has not run on enforcement of a 1994 property
division because the judgment did not state a time for completing the
division and contained a clause reserving the court's jurisdiction over
the marital assets "pending implementation" of the division. Because
the judgment did not postpone enforcement of the division, the district
court did not err in refusing further process in appellant's enforcement
proceedings.
= = = =
A06-2264

County of Blue Earth,
Appellant,
vs.
Russell H. Vigness,
Respondent,
PETERSON, Judge
This appeal is from an order that (1) grants appellant's motion
for an order finding respondent Russell H. Vigness in contempt of court;
(2) denies appellant's motion for an order finding respondent Brunz of
Southern Minnesota Construction Co., Inc. in contempt of court; and (3)
denies appellant's motion for sanctions against either respondent. We
affirm.
= = = =
A06-2117

Paul W. Welsh, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Anthony J. DeMars, et al.,
Appellants.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from an order confirming the validity of respondents' easement
over their property, appellants challenge the district court's ruling
that the Marketable Title Act, Minn. Stat. ? 541.023 (2006), does not
preclude respondents from enforcing the easement. Because we conclude
that the district court did not err, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2068

In re the Matter of: Julie Lynn North,
Respondent,

vs.

Brian Douglas Larson,
Appellant.

MINGE, Judge
Appellant requests review of the district court's denial of his
request to vacate a default judgment that determined his obligations and
rights as a father and awarded attorney fees to respondent mother.
Appellant asserts that the district court abused its discretion in
finding that his failure to participate in the hearing was not excusable
neglect as provided in Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02(a).
Because we conclude that the district court did not properly apply the
rule and that appellant meets the excusable-neglect standard, 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.