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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1954

In re the Marriage of:
Francis Terrance Higgins, Jr.,
petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Sabrina Lynn Fritz,
Appellant.

CRIPPEN, Judge
In the most recent stage of this contentious custody dispute,
appellant challenges the denial of her last motion for a change of
custody and related relief. There being no merit in her various claims
of error in the district court's order, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1916

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Al Stone Folson

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Al Stone Folson challenges the district court's
determination that he continues to be a sexually dangerous person (SDP),
with no less-restrictive alternative than indeterminate commitment.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
appellant's juvenile records in this civil-commitment proceeding, and
because the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that appellant has
engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct and that he is highly
likely to reoffend by engaging in harmful sexual conduct, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1892

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Jeremy Neil Bartholomew a/k/a Jeremy Neil Kienert

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Jeremy Neil Bartholomew, a/k/a Jeremy Neil Kienert,
challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a
sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) on the ground that the district
court made insufficient findings. Because the district court made
extensive findings that support the commitment and are not clearly
erroneous, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-1531

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Allison Fischer

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Allison Fischer challenges two orders issued by the
district court, one committing her as mentally ill and the other
authorizing the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication,
contending that the evidence does not support the district court's
findings and that the orders violate her constitutional rights. Because
clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's
determination that appellant presents a substantial likelihood of harm
to herself and refuses to comply with treatment or take medication, and
because the orders do not violate appellant's constitutional rights, we
affirm.
= = = =
A07-849

Verna M. Cyrette, as Trustee for the heirs of Damien Anderson, deceased,
Appellant,

vs.

Velcommen Village, Inc.,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's judgment dismissing
her complaint based upon appellant's failure to file an affidavit of
expert review or affidavit of identification of expert witnesses.
Appellant argues that such affidavits were not required because (1)
respondent was not an institution entitled to the protection of Minn.
Stat. ? 145.682 (2006); (2) the employee whose actions were alleged to
have caused the harm was not a licensed health-care professional; (3)
the lack of care resulting in the harm was care that could have been
provided by any person at any location; and (4) a jury hearing the
evidence would not require the assistance of expert testimony to decide
the issues of standard of care, breach, and causation. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0793

Carlene Yvonne Nistler, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Terrance Roger Nistler, II,
Appellant.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant father challenges the denial of his motion to reduce
his child-support obligation and arrears, arguing that he was denied due
process of law at the hearing and the child-support magistrate (CSM)
abused her discretion by (1) finding that having the child live in his
home had not satisfied his support obligation and (2) in denying his
motion to reduce his ongoing support obligation. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0687

Northfield Telecommunications, Inc., d/b/a Advanced Wireless,
Appellant,

vs.

Maplewood Mall Associates, Ltd. Partnership,
Respondent.


CONNOLLY, Judge
On appeal from summary judgment in a commercial landlord-tenant
action, appellant-tenant challenges the district court's dismissal of
its claims of breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good
faith and fair dealing, and fraud in the inducement. On the
breach-of-contract claim, appellant argues that the lease was ambiguous
concerning the number of rent reductions owed to appellant under the
lease and any ambiguity in the lease should be construed against
respondent-landlord, who drafted it. Because we agree that the district
court properly dismissed the claims relating to fraud in the inducement
and breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, we
affirm. We also affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment
on the eviction claim. However, because the district court failed to
consider a letter sent by appellant to respondent under a provision of
the lease that would have triggered a rent reduction, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings on the breach-of-contract claim. We
therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
= = = =
A07-0643

Stephen A. Burdette,
Relator,

vs.

BCBSM, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PORITSKY, Judge
The unemployment law judge (ULJ) determined that relator is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed
employment misconduct. In this pro se certiorari appeal, relator
challenges the ULJ's decision, arguing that (1) the ULJ's factual
findings are unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the ULJ
misinterpreted Minn. Stat. ? 268.095 (2006); (3) the ULJ failed to
consider relator's employment record; (4) relator was given insufficient
time to prepare for the hearing before the ULJ; and (5) the ULJ erred in
ignoring relator's status as a member of a protected class. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-642

Loretta Jane Jenson,
Relator,

vs.

Grove Homes Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
On certiorari appeal from the unemployment-law judge's decision that
relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, relator
argues that the decision was in error because she quit for a good reason
caused by her employer. Because the unemployment-law judge's decision
was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0611

Nancy C. Levang,
Relator,

vs.

TCG Incorporated,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

COLLINS, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the ULJ that relator was disqualified
from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without good
reason caused by the employer. Relator argues that she did not quit
because (a) she was under no obligation to request another position upon
completion of her job assignment; and (b) her assignment was not
suitable. She also contends that she had good reason to quit because
her employer intentionally prevented her from obtaining permanent
employment. Because relator did not offer the evidence of good reason
to quit until after the original hearing, and because the ULJ did not
err in declining to grant an additional hearing, we affirm as to the
issue of good reason to quit. But because the ULJ failed to consider
whether relator's previous assignment was suitable, we reverse and
remand.
= = = =
A07-0509

Willy J. Alexis,
Relator,

vs.

G2 Secure Staff LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

COLLINS, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law
judge (ULJ) that he was discharged for employment misconduct and,
therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We
affirm.
= = = =
A07-0493

In re the Marriage of:
Leah Grace Staquet, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Paul John Staquet,
Appellant,

and

Pennington County,
Intervenor.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant-father filed a notice of appeal challenging the order
of the child support magistrate granting father's motion for
modification of his child-support obligation. However, father failed to
brief any issues related to that order, or raise any issues which are
properly before this court. Accordingly his appeal is dismissed.
Respondent-mother, by a notice of review, challenges the same order of
the CSM granting appellant-father's motion for modification of child
support. Because the child support magistrate abused his discretion in
granting the motion, we reverse.
= = = =
A07-0198

In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Stifel, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Daniel Charles Stifel,
Appellant.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Challenging the amount of the district court's spousal
maintenance and child support determinations, appellant Daniel Stifel
contends that the court made erroneous findings on matters relating to
his ability to pay and respondent Brenda Stifel's needs. There being no
showing of error on this ground or others, we affirm. But because the
parties agree that the child-support award could exceed the statutory
cap, we reduce appellant's monthly child-support obligation to the
statutory guideline amount.

 

 
 
 

  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.