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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2049

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
David James Jannetta.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellant challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous
person, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the
commitment, that the district court erred in committing him to the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program, that the Minnesota Sexually Dangerous
Person Act conflicts with his constitutional right to due process, and
that he should have been given an opportunity to challenge the validity
of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program at his commitment review hearing.
We affirm.
= = = =
A07-1881

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
D. D. and W. H., Parents.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant D.D. challenges the district court's order terminating
her parental rights to S.L.H. Appellant argues that (1) the district
court's application of the statutory presumption of palpable unfitness
violated the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and (2) the record does
not support termination of appellant's parental rights based on her
palpable unfitness to be a party to the parent-child relationship. We
affirm.
= = = =
A07-1813


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Grady Ladonn Williams

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Grady Ladonn Williams appeals the 2005 order initially
committing him and the 2007 order indeterminately committing him to
treatment in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous
person (SDP). Because (1) clear and convincing evidence supports the
district court's orders for initial and indeterminate commitment, (2)
the district court's determination that the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program is the least-restrictive alternative is not clearly erroneous,
and (3) the statutes were constitutionally applied to appellant, we
affirm.
= = = =
A07-0676

In re the Marriage of:
Judith M. Dunkin, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Richard L. Dunkin,
Appellant.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant-husband appeals from an order of the district court
denying his posttrial motion for a new trial or amended findings
regarding the award of temporary spousal maintenance to respondent-wife.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0514

Keith Baker,
Appellant,

vs.

Sunbelt Business Brokers,
Respondent,

Dogs Howling, Inc.,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge
In this action arising from the attempt to purchase a business,
appellant challenges the dismissal of his lawsuit under Minn. R. Civ. P.
12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted
and moves to strike portions of respondents' appellate brief. All
parties seek attorney fees related to the motion. We affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand. We also grant appellant's motion to strike
portions of respondents' brief and deny each party's motion for attorney
fees.
= = = =
A07-0378

Darl Gillespie,
Respondent,

vs.

Ramsey County, et al.,
Appellants.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellants Ramsey County, et al., challenge the district court's order
that denies in part their motion for summary judgment. The court
concluded that appellants were not immune from suit brought by an inmate
claiming personal injuries suffered while in the outside exercise yard
of a correctional facility. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0324

Elvin D. Siegel,
Appellant,

vs.

R. Scott Nagel,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
This appeal involves a land-ownership dispute between rural neighbors
Elvin Siegel and Scott Nagel in Morrison County. Siegel, who destroyed
2,500 trees and a fence on Nagel's property at first repeatedly agreed
to pay for the damage, but he later reneged. After Nagel sued to
recover in trespass, Siegel defended aggressively, asserting for the
first time in his counterclaim that, by virtue of adverse possession,
Siegel actually owns the land where the alleged trespass occurred. The
parties tried the case to the district court, which rejected Siegel's
claim of ownership by adverse possession and awarded treble damages to
Nagel for the trespass. Siegel appeals, challenging the district
court's factual findings regarding the bases for adverse possession and
the court's legal determination that Nagel's adverse possession claim
also is barred by laches. Because the record supports the district
court's findings that establish that Siegel failed to prove all of the
elements of adverse possession, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0284

Donna J. Saari,
Relator,

vs.

The Long Term Care Group,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge
Relator appeals her denial of unemployment benefits. Because
the unemployment law judge did not err in determining that relator did
not quit for good reason attributable to the employer, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0156

In re the Marriage of:
Jean-Marie Baudhuin, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

David J. Baudhuin,
Respondent

HALBROOKS, Judge
In this second appeal arising out of marriage-dissolution
proceedings, appellant contends that the district court erred by (1)
failing to properly implement remand instructions regarding her spousal
maintenance, (2) denying her subsequent motion to modify maintenance,
(3) discharging alleged child-support arrears, (4) failing to properly
implement remand instructions concerning ,000 that is still owed her
under the parties' dissolution judgment and decree, (5) refusing to
order judgment for her in the amount of ,833.64 that is owed to her
under the dissolution judgment, and (6) awarding respondent
conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm in part and remand.
= = = =
A06-2305

The Big Lake Association,
Relator,

vs.

Saint Louis County Planning Commission, et al.,
Respondents,

Big Lake Properties, LLC,
Defendant,

John A. Swenson,
Respondent,

Sheryl L. Swenson,
Defendant,

George P. Nall,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
In this appeal, relator Big Lake Association challenges
respondent St. Louis County's grant of a conditional use permit (CUP) to
Big Lake Properties, LLC. Relator argues that the county's decision to
grant the CUP was arbitrary and capricious and requests that we reverse
the grant of the CUP and remand this case to respondent St. Louis County
Planning Commission for further hearings. Because the county's grant of
the CUP was not unreasonable or arbitrary and capricious, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0462

Frank Spencer, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Department of Corrections,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment dismissing appellants'
discrimination, retaliation, and reprisal claims against respondent,
their state employer, appellants argue that the district court erred by
(1) concluding appellant Robinson's claims for discrete acts of
discrimination are time-barred and (2) concluding that appellants failed
to make a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliation, or reprisal
on the remaining claims. Because the district court correctly applied
the statute of limitations to appellant Robinson's claims for failure to
transfer and correctly concluded that Spencer, Grant, and Robinson
failed to make a prima facie case on non-time-barred claims, we affirm
in part. Because appellant Ekereuke presented sufficient evidence to
make a prima facie case of race or national-origin discrimination on her
claim of failure to promote and raised material fact questions about
respondent's rebuttal evidence, we reverse summary judgment on that
claim and remand for further proceedings in the district court.
 

 
 
 

  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.