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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-0665

Gary Fridell, as Trustee for the heirs of Jane A. Fridell,
Appellant,

vs.

CommonBond Communities, Inc.,
d/b/a Oak Ridge Assisted Living of Hastings,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant Gary Fridell, as trustee for the heirs of Jane A. Fridell,
challenges the district court's decision granting respondent CommonBond
Communities, Inc.'s motion to dismiss with prejudice for appellant's
noncompliance with the expert-disclosure-affidavit requirement of Minn.
Stat. ? 145.682 (2006). Because the district court did not err in
determining that appellant's cause of action requires expert testimony
to establish a prima facie case of negligence, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0347

Christina Igoe,
Relator,

v.

Wells Fargo Bank NA,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that
relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she
quit her job without a good reason caused by her employer. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0287

In the Matter of the Revocation of the License of Victoria Stovall
and Gloria Pargo to Provide Family Child Care.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relators appeal from a final order by the Minnesota Commissioner of
Human Services revoking their child-care license. Because the
commissioner did not abuse his discretion, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0262

In re the Marriage of:
Annette Lee DeRosier,
n/k/a Annette Lee Kelley, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

James Howard DeRosier,
Lower Court Respondent,

and re the motions of:
Lois M. DeRosier, et. al.,
proposed intervenors,
Appellants.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellants challenge the trial court's denial of their motion to
intervene in the dissolution proceeding of respondents Annette Lee
Kelley and James Howard DeRosier, and to vacate the dissolution decree.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in applying the intervention
factors under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 and misconstrued the discussion of
nonparty jurisdiction in Sammons v. Sammons, 642 N.W.2d 450 (Minn. App.
2002). Because appellants' motion was untimely and because Sammons is
distinguishable from the facts of this case, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0140

John R. Deneen, Jr.,
Relator,

vs.

Minneapolis Special School District #001,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges an unemployment law judge's decision that he was not
eligible for unemployment benefits because he was not actively seeking
suitable employment. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0102

In re the Marriage of:
Lynae Dana Nahring, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Curtis Norman Nahring,
Appellant.

WRIGHT, Judge
In this challenge to the amount of child support and spousal
maintenance awarded by the district court, appellant-husband argues that
(1) the district court's decision to calculate his income by using a
seven-year average was clearly erroneous; (2) the record does not
support a deduction of 13.5 percent of respondent-wife's gross income
for retirement savings; and (3) the findings do not reflect that the
district court considered the requisite statutory factors. We reverse
and remand.
= = = =
A07-0040

Sharon D. Rose,
Relator,

vs.

JRM Management LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ)
determination that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because she was terminated for employment misconduct. Because
the record supports the ULJ's determination, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2468

In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Gladys Brooks

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from an order allowing the amended first annual account of
conservator, appellant argues that the district court erred because it
(1) allowed an account that did not meet basic accounting standards; (2)
overruled appellant's objections to the initial inventory, which was
filed late and did not specifically describe and provide the value of
the estate's property; and (3) did not properly monitor the
conservatorship. Appellant also contends that the district court abused
its discretion when it maintained conservatee's in forma pauperis (IFP)
status. The district court did not clearly err in allowing the amended
account and amended inventory, and it properly monitored the
conservatorship. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in
maintaining conservatee's IFP status. Accordingly, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2400

Metropolitan Airports Commission, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Thomas W. Noble,
Appellant,

Speedway SuperAmerica LLC,
a Delaware corporation,
Respondent,

Northern States Power Company,
n/k/a Xcel Energy,
Respondent,

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

County of Hennepin,
Respondent,

City of Bloomington,
Respondent.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
In this eminent-domain proceeding, appellant-lessor Thomas W.
Noble challenges the district court's summary-judgment determination
that respondent-lessee Speedway SuperAmerica LLC was entitled to the
part of the Metropolitan Airports Commission takings award that was
allocated as compensation for "immovable fixtures." Appellant argues
that (1) respondent is precluded from sharing in the award because the
lease agreement contained a condemnation clause terminating respondent's
interest in the condemned property following a taking by eminent domain;
and (2) even if the lease agreement preserved some interest for
respondent in the property post-condemnation despite the condemnation
clause, respondent is not entitled to share in the award because the
conditions within the clause were not satisfied. Appellant also
contends the district court erred in ordering him to pay the interest
respondent was owed on its part of the award. We reverse.
= = = =
A06-2353

Ronald Richard Johnson,
Appellant,

Dee Johnson,
Plaintiff,

vs.

City of Shorewood,
Respondent,

City of Minnetonka,
Respondent,

Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Respondent,

Trivesco, et. al.,
Respondents,

Highland Villa Builders, Inc.,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant Ronald Johnson challenges the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of all named respondents. Appellant argues
that the district court erred by (1) denying his request for a
declaratory judgment and an additional takings proceeding under Minn.
Stat. ? 117.045 (2006), based on "[r]espondents' future, continued and
increased flooding and other takings of [appellant's] property"; (2)
dismissing appellant's 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 claims and not granting his
motion for partial summary judgment; (3) dismissing appellant's
inverse-condemnation claim and refusing to enter a declaratory judgment
related to alleged 2000 "Vine Hill Road" takings; (4) dismissing
appellant's state-law claims against respondent Trivesco; and (5)
denying appellant's postjudgment motion. Because the district court did
not err in any of its determinations, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-2225

Save Our Creeks,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from dismissal of a claim arising under the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act, appellant argues that the dismissal was
improper because respondent arbitrarily and capriciously denied
appellant's request for further environmental review. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's
claim, 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.