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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2294

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Mary Jane Anderson

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant appeals from the district court's order to have her civilly committed as mentally ill. She contends that the district court erred when it found that she had failed to provide herself with necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's finding that appellant presents a substantial likelihood of harm to herself by refusing to seek medical care, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-2069

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Christopher Robert Krych

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Christopher Robert Krych challenges his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Because the trial court did not err in admitting evidence and because clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-2003

Jamil Aref Jabr, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Teena Marie Jabr,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
Jamil Jabr brings this appeal arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to modify child custody based on child endangerment, granted need-based attorney fees to Teena Jabr, and continued his obligation to carry a 0,000 life insurance policy which exceeds the amount needed to secure payment of child support. Jamil Jabr also contends that the district court violated his constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech by prohibiting him from publishing "anything" about Teena Jabr or her family. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Jamil Jabr's motion to modify custody, awarded Teena Jabr need-based attorney fees, ordered continuation of the 0,000 life insurance obligation, and denied Jamil Jabr's request for permission to disclose information covered by a 2002 protective order. But the later, 2007 protective order prohibiting the parties from publishing "anything" about Teena Jabr or her family is overbroad and violates Jamil Jabr's rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
= = = =
A07-1452

Delores Lexus Stennis,
Relator,

vs.

Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges respondent commissioner's refusal to set aside relator's disqualification from working in direct contact with persons served by programs licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) based on her eight convictions for theft-related offenses. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0988

Gregory A. Krueger,
Appellant,

vs.

Canabury Condominium Association,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellant Gregory Krueger challenges the district court's order denying him a continuance and granting summary judgment to respondent Canabury Condominium Association. Because appellant had an adequate opportunity to prepare for the summary judgment hearing and retain counsel, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to continue the hearing. Because appellant failed to raise sufficient evidence of essential elements of his negligence claim, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
= = = =
A07-0982

Heather Anne Callahan,
Relator,

vs.

Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Health,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator challenges the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health's decision not to set aside her disqualification from providing direct contact services to persons receiving services from certain licensed facilities. Relator argues that the commissioner erred in denying her request because the commissioner's decision (1) violated due process, and (2) was affected by an error of law. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0796

In re the Marriage of:
Jana Lou Maxwell, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Robert Eugene Maxwell,
Respondent.

JOHNSON, Judge
After 33 years of marriage, Jana Lou Maxwell and Robert Eugene Maxwell divorced in 1992, at which time Robert began paying spousal maintenance to Jana. Upon his retirement in 2006 at age 70, Robert moved to terminate the spousal maintenance obligation. The district court granted his motion. On appeal, Jana argues that the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding the parties' incomes and expenses and abused its discretion in concluding that continued spousal maintenance would be unreasonable and unfair. We conclude that the district court did not err and, therefore, affirm.
= = = =
A07-0732

Burnet Realty, Inc.,
d/b/a Coldwell Banker Burnet,
Respondent,

vs.

Sohan Uppal,
Appellant.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellant Sohan Uppal contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to respondent Burnet Realty, Inc. Respondent contends that the district court was correct in concluding that respondent's claim for real estate commissions was not sufficiently mature to permit pleading the claim in a previous action between the parties, and thus was not subject to the compulsory-counterclaim requirement of Minn. R. Civ. P. 13.01.
Because respondent's claim arose out of the same transaction as the subject matter of the previous litigation and all pertinent evidence to the claim was available at the time respondent served its pleading in the previous litigation, respondent's claim was a compulsory counterclaim under rule 13.01, and the district court erred in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for entry of a corrected judgment.
= = = =
A07-0712

Jodi A. Stromdahl,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


KALITOWSKI, Judge
On certiorari appeal, relator Jodi A. Stromdahl argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) erred in determining that she did not work in covered employment and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-607

Judith A. Davidson,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
On certiorari appeal, relator argues that the unemployment-law judge erred in holding that she was not eligible for unemployment benefits and contends that she should be eligible because she relied to her detriment on advice from an employee of respondent. Because relator's first benefit year expired and she did not have any covered earnings to establish a second benefit account, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0524

David K. Broska,
Relator,

vs.

Premier Investment Services Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that he was discharged for misconduct and disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits after repeated issues with tardiness and absences, arguing that his hours were flexible, he was never warned that an absence could lead to termination, and he was actually terminated because he did not get along with his immediate supervisor. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0458

Carole A. Swanson,
Relator,

vs.

County of Hennepin,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Carole Swanson challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she quit her employment without good reason caused by the employer and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because there is ample evidence that relator did not have good cause to quit and there was no error of law, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0442

In re the Matter of:
State of Minnesota, County of Carver, ex rel. Lori J. Schuman, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Daniel L. Revsbech,
Appellant.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant-father seeks reversal of an order in which the district court interpreted ambiguous language in its prior order, concluding that the prior order did not modify medical-support and childcare-support arrearages. Because the district court's interpretation of the ambiguous language in its prior order is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0422

Sean D. Theelke,
Relator,

vs.

Maucieri Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator Sean D. Theelke challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) disqualifying relator from receiving unemployment benefits because he engaged in employment misconduct. Relator argues that his conduct does not constitute employment misconduct because it involved a single incident that did not have a significant adverse impact on his employer and that the ULJ's findings are unsupported by the record and depend on undocumented evidence. We affirm.
= = = =
A07-0254

Kirk James Hiner, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Jeffrey H. Boldon,
Appellant,

Boldon Recycling and Converting, Inc.,
Defendant.

HUDSON, Judge
In this action challenging the district court's imposition of an equitable remedy under Minn. Stat. 322B.833 (2006) (the Limited Liability Company Act), appellant argues that the district court (1) erroneously failed to distinguish between a corporation and its sole shareholder; (2) failed to address various alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by a corporate treasurer to the corporation; and (3) abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to respondents. Because appellant failed to provide a sufficient record for appellate review, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0250

Renee Malknecht,
Appellant,

vs.

Independent School District No. 833,
Respondent,

Walter Lyszak,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
In this age- and sex-discrimination action brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, appellant Renee Malknecht challenges the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents Independent School District 833 and Walter Lyszak. Because appellant's sex-discrimination claim was time-barred and the remaining claims are legally unsupportable, we affirm.
= = = =
A07-0126

Richard J. Rosson,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator challenges an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he failed to maintain an active benefits account and argues that the ULJ erred in determining the effective date of his benefits account. Because a statute enacted after the ULJ's decision specifically addresses and resolves the eligibility-for-benefits issue in favor of relator, we reverse the ULJ on that issue. But because the ULJ correctly determined the effective date of relator's benefits account, we affirm the ULJ on the second issue.
= = = =
A06-1735

Christopher Munyiri Mwangi, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license following an implied-consent hearing, arguing that the Fourth Judicial District's (Hennepin County) procedures violated his right to due process and arguing that the district court erred when it determined that appellant was not subjected to an unlawful seizure by the arresting officer. Because we conclude that appellant's due-process rights were not violated and that the district court did not err, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-1167

Elizabeth Leah Barth, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the Fourth Judicial District's (Hennepin County) procedures for providing judicial review of the revocation of her license pursuant to Minnesota's implied-consent laws. She claims that Hennepin County's standing policy of not scheduling implied-consent hearings until after any criminal case associated with a license revocation is resolved violates both the state statute and due process. Because we conclude that appellant's due-process rights have not been violated and that Hennepin County's noncompliance with the timing requirements of the relevant statute do not warrant rescission of her license revocation, 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.