THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
Minneapolis attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Minneapolis 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@injurylawstpaul.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Diane Pelinka,
Respondent,

vs.

Richard Pelinka,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge

On appeal from the district court's order denying appellant Richard
Pelinka's motion to modify his child-support obligation, Richard Pelinka
argues that the district court abused its discretion by (a) failing to
make a finding of his income; (b) imposing a ,650 monthly
child-support obligation without support in the record; and (c) not
applying a retroactive reduction of his child-support obligation.
Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
= = = =
A05-1912

Dennis Winkelman,
Relator,

vs.

Stearns County Planning Commission,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from a conditional-use permit (CUP) decision, relator argues
(a) the "denial" is defective because no reasons were given why the site
for relator's proposed construction was unacceptable; and (b) the record
submitted to the county is factually incorrect and would not support
denying the CUP even if adopted as the reasons for the denial.
Respondent challenges this court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Because
this court has jurisdiction to hear the case, and because appellant has
not shown that the county acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner by
approving the CUP with the additional condition regarding the placement
of the house on the property, we affirm.
= = = =
A05-2010

In re the Matter of:

Sharon Mae Morrissette, f/k/a
Sharon Mae Mrutu, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Stephen Aminiel Mrutu,
Appellant.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from the district court's grant of an extension of an
OFP, pro se appellant-husband argues that the record does not support
the district court's findings that he threatened respondent-wife and
violated the OFP. We affirm.
= = = =
A05-2155


Shannon Joseph Hinnenkamp,
Relator,

vs.

Benton County Planning Commission,
Respondent.

PARKER, Judge
Relator Shannon Joseph Hinnenkamp appeals from respondent Benton
County Planning Commission's denial of his application for a
conditional-use permit (CUP). We affirm.
= = = =
A05-2169

Raymond Parker,
Relator,

vs.

Commonbond Housing (Corp),
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge
(ULJ) that he was discharged for misconduct. Because we conclude that
relator's conduct clearly displayed a serious violation of the standards
of behavior his employer had a right to expect, we affirm.
= = = =
A05-2204


In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:
Cedar Fair, an Ohio general partnership,
Respondent,

vs.

Minntertainment Company,
Defendant,

MOA Entertainment Company, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from the district court's stay of the parties'
arbitration, appellant argues both that arbitration should not have been
stayed because the parties' dispute fell within the scope of the
parties' arbitration clause and that failing to compel arbitration in
this case violates the public policy favoring arbitration. We affirm.
= = = =
A05-2244

Denise H. Norby,
Relator,

vs.

City of Isle,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

DIETZEN, Judge

By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the
unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged for employment
misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's finding that
relator engaged in employment misconduct, we affirm.
= = = =
A05-2251

Jodi Ann Hawkinson,
Respondent,

vs.

Anoka County, et al.,
Appellants,

Anoka-Hennepin EM Narcotics &
Violent Crimes Task Force, et al.,
Defendants.

HALBROOKS, Judge
This matter arises out of the execution of a search warrant at
respondent's home. Respondent brought suit against Anoka County, the
Anoka-Hennepin East Metro Narcotics and Violent Crimes Task Force (Task
Force), Anoka County Sheriff Larry Podany, and several individual
law-enforcement officers, asserting multiple causes of action including
assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent training,
negligent retention, negligent supervision, and invasion of privacy.
Respondent sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.
Ruling on defendants' (now appellants') motion to dismiss and/or
for summary judgment, the district court (1) granted summary judgment
with respect to the Task Force and dismissed the Task Force as a party;
(2) granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, except for
Anoka County and Sheriff Podany, on all claims subject to a two-year
statute of limitations, including assault, battery, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (3) granted summary judgment in favor
of all defendants as to the invasion-of-privacy claim; (4) granted
summary judgment in favor of all defendants on claims of liability or
vicarious liability, including negligent infliction of emotional
distress; (5) granted summary judgment on the negligent-training claim;
and (6) denied summary judgment to Anoka County and Sheriff Podany on
the negligent-supervision and negligent-retention claims. The district
court further stated that any claims against individual defendants
subject to a six-year statute of limitations, with the exception of
negligent infliction of emotional distress, remained.
Appellants Anoka County and Sheriff Podany challenge the
district court's denial of summary judgment on the negligent-supervision
and negligent-retention claims, asserting that the claims are barred by
statutory immunity. Appellants also challenge the district court's
determination that claims subject to a six-year statute of limitation
remain, on the ground that respondent has not properly pleaded such a
claim and, further, any such claims would be barred by official immunity
and vicarious official immunity. Respondent filed a notice of review,
challenging the district court's order dismissing most of her claims.
Because we conclude that the district court did not err by
dismissing the majority of the respondent's claims, we affirm in part.
But because we conclude that the appellants are entitled to statutory
immunity on the negligent-supervision and negligent-retention claims, we
reverse the district court's denial of summary judgment on those claims.
= = = =
A05-2260

Mohamed Elsherif, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Allina Hospitals and Clinics, et al.,
Respondents.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants, who are Muslim and African-born, challenge the
district court's order dismissing their discrimination claims against
respondents, who failed to offer them employment as security guards.
Appellants allege that the district court made several errors, including
a number of evidentiary errors, in considering their allegations of
discrimination. We affirm.
= = = =
A05-2320

Nicholas John Sing,
Appellant,

vs.

1997 Cadillac,
Respondent.

PARKER, Judge
Appellant Nicholas John Sing appeals the district court's
dismissal of his demand for judicial determination of the forfeiture of
his vehicle, which was seized in connection with a controlled-substance
offense. Because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
based on Sing's failure to serve the county attorney properly, we
affirm.
= = = =
A05-2328

In re the Marriage of:

John Henry Keenan, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Louise Lorene Keenan,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant John Henry Keenan argues that the district court (1)
abused its discretion by awarding him and respondent Louise Lorene
Keenan joint physical custody of their children; (2) abused its
discretion by ordering appellant to pay spousal maintenance of 0 per
month; (3) erred by classifying a piece of rental property as marital
property; and (4) abused its discretion by awarding respondent attorney
fees and costs. We affirm.
= = = =
A05-2384

Sally Renish and Barbara Stanley
on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Respondents,
vs.

Hometown America, L.L.C.,
d/b/a Rosemount Woods Manufactured
Home Community,
Appellant.

FORSBERG, Judge
Appellant Hometown America, the owner and operator of the
manufactured home community in which respondents live, challenges the
decision of the district court granting a permanent injunction and
partial summary judgment in favor of respondents. Appellant argues that
the district court erred in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel
and in determining on the merits that imposing separate utility bills
was a substantial modification to the lease and was arbitrary and
capricious under Minn. Stat. ?? 327C.02, subd. 2, .05 (2004). Because
the district court correctly ruled on the merits as a matter of law, we
affirm.
= = = =
A05-2467

Marie Guess, as Trustee for the Heirs
and Next of Kin of Michael L. Guess,
Appellant,

vs.

Mark Priore, Special Administrator for
the Estate of Richard E. Conry, deceased,
Defendant,

Aviation Charter, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.

HUDSON, Judge
This is an appeal of the district court's grant of summary
judgment on appellant's lawsuit against respondent Aviation Charter for
defense and indemnity of appellant's claims against the co-employee's
estate under Minn. Stat. ? 181.970, subd. 1 (2004), and on appellant's
lawsuit against respondent Beech Transportation for vicarious liability
under Minn. Stat. ? 360.0216 (2004). Because the employer and the
co-employee were immune from suit pursuant to the workers' compensation
law, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
respondents, and we affirm.
= = = =
A06-60


In re the Marriage of:

Randall M. Johnson, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Deidre C. Johnson
Appellant,


RANDALL, Judge
In this dissolution appeal, appellant-mother challenges the district
court's determination on custody, arguing that the court-appointed
custody evaluator's report reflected impermissible bias and that the
district court improperly adopted respondent-father's proposed findings
on custody. Appellant also argues that the district court erred in its
findings on the duration and amount of maintenance and should have
awarded her attorney fees. We conclude the record does not reflect
improper bias on the part of the custody evaluator, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in determining custody and maintenance, and
did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-66

Deb Forthun, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent,

Waseca County Department of Human Services,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's order affirming the
Commissioner of Human Services' decision that they must reimburse the
county for part of the cost of their son's out-of-home placement.
Appellants contend that they did not have the opportunity to be heard
regarding their ability to pay and that they do not have the ability to
pay because, although the county is seeking income that is attributable
to their son, the claim was asserted eight months after the last income
attributable to their son was received. Because the commissioner did
not err in the determination that equitable estoppel is inapplicable to
this case or in the interpretation of Minn. Stat. ? 256B.35 (2004), we
affirm the commissioner on those issues. But because appellants did not
have an opportunity to be heard on the issue of their ability to support
their son and the court made no findings on this issue and because the
applicability of Minn. Stat. ? 256M.60, subd. 6, has not been addressed,
we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
= = = =
A06-91

In re the Marriage of: Mark William Carroll,
Respondent,

vs.

Desiree Lucille Boeltl,
Appellant.


ROSS, Judge
In this appeal in a parenting-time and custody dispute, appellant-mother
argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) modifying
the parties' custody arrangement without making the proper or adequately
supported findings; (2) rejecting a family-court officer's
recommendation and imposing a parenting-time schedule; and (3) imposing
a child-support obligation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
= = = =
A06-120

The County of Dakota, (C.P. 28-15), petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Gopher Smelting and Refining Co., et al.,
Respondents Below,

William Stoerzinger,
Appellant
Re: Parcels 4, 4A and 4B, Map 273.

WILLIS, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that the district
court erred by declining to reform a quitclaim deed. Because appellant
failed to provide the clear and consistent, unequivocal and convincing
evidence necessary for reformation of a deed, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-212

In re the Marriage of:
Carolyn Sue Moore, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Randall Scott Moore,
Appellant.

PARKER, Judge
The parenting plan included in the judgment dissolving the
marriage of appellant-father Randall Moore and respondent-mother Carolyn
Moore equally apportions parenting time between the parties and awards
them joint legal custody, but does not identify the children's physical
custodian(s). On appeal from the district court's denial of father's
motion for sole custody, father argues that he made a prima facie case
to modify custody entitling him to an evidentiary hearing, that the
district court should not have replaced the parties' parenting
consultant, and that the modification of parenting time is flawed
because he was entitled to a hearing on the subject and because the
record does not support the district court's reapportioning of parenting
time. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-659

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of
Brian Peter Braaten.

LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from an order for indeterminate civil commitment
as a sexually dangerous person and sexual psychopathic personality,
Brian Braaten contends that, because he completed a sex-offender
treatment program while incarcerated, commitment to the Minnesota Sex
Offender Treatment Program violates his substantive due process rights
and constitutes double jeopardy. Because clear and convincing evidence
supports the district court's determination that Braaten satisfies the
statutory criteria for commitment, that Braaten did not meet his burden
of showing that a feasible less-restrictive-placement alternative
exists, and that commitment is neither arbitrary nor for punitive
purposes, 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 Lawyer 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.