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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-2315
In the Matter of:
Jodie Lynn Rotter, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Richard Earl Hansen,
Appellant.
HALBROOKS, Judge
In this pro se appeal, appellant challenges a district court's grant of an order for protection to respondent, prohibiting appellant from having contact with her. He contends that the district court erred in the burden of proof that respondent was subject to, that the evidence did not support the granting of the order for protection, and that the district court judge was biased against him and improperly limited both his cross-examination of respondent and his direct testimony. We affirm.

A07-0229
John D. Huseby,
Relator,
vs.
Taylor Made Lawn and Landscape, LLC,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
PETERSON, Judge
This is a certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge's decision that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. Because relator has not identified any prejudicial error, and no prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection of the record, we affirm.

A07-0338
In re the Marriage of:
Jacqueline M. Reuter, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Dennis R. Reuter,
Appellant.
LANSING, Judge
Dennis Reuter, a self-employed farmer, appeals the district court's determination of his net monthly income for purposes of calculating his child-support obligation. Because the district court's computation of net income does not properly take into account depreciation deductions for dairy cows, farm buildings, and farm equipment, we reverse and remand.

A07-450
Anna M. Ripka,
Relator,
vs.
West Publishing Corp.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
WILLIS, Judge
Relator appeals from her disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment-law judge's determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

A07-0529
Michael C. Mahoney, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Roman B. Spors, et al.,
Defendants,
Paul R. Nelson, et al.,
cross-claimants,
Respondents,
vs.
Roman B. Spors, et al.,
Cross Defendants.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
In this easement dispute involving Big Trout Lake access over two adjacent properties located in Crosslake, appellants Michael C. and Virginia A. Mahoney challenge the district court's ruling that they have no easement over property owned by respondents Paul R. and Kristi A. Nelson. Appellants claim that the district court erred in finding an easement in gross over respondents' property held by a predecessor-in-interest to appellants' property, and in concluding that appellants have no easement by prescription over the subject property. Because we conclude that the district court was correct in its rulings, we affirm. We also deny respondents' request for attorney fees.

A07-0564
Gary F. Menne,
Respondent,
vs.
Ted Phillips,
Relator,
Office of Administrative Hearings,
Respondent.
WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges an administrative determination that his campaign flyers threatened voters in violation of Minn. Stat. 211B.07 (2006), arguing that the evidence does not support a finding that he violated the statute, which prohibits exerting undue influence on voters, and that the statute is facially unconstitutional. We reverse.

A07-0634
Northshore Mining Company,
Relator,
vs.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Respondent,
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy,
Respondent.
PORITSKY, Judge
Relator Northshore Mining Company (Northshore) challenges respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) denial of Northshore's application for an administrative permit amendment to eliminate the "control-city" standard from its existing permit. Because MPCA did not err in concluding that Northshore used the wrong amendment procedure, we affirm.

A07-0650
In the Marriage of:
Beth Marie Erickson, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Darrin John Zachrison,
Appellant.
LANSING, Judge
Darrin Zachrison challenges the district court's determination in a marital-dissolution proceeding that the five-acre parcel on which he and Beth Erickson built their home is marital property. Zachrison maintains that, despite the warranty deed conveying the land to Zachrison and Erickson as joint tenants, his parents intended to gift the land to him individually. Because Zachrison has not demonstrated that the district court erred as a matter of law by finding that the land is marital property, we affirm.

A07-664
In re the Marriage of:
David R.B. Knighton, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Ellen L.B. Knighton,
Respondent.
WORKE, Judge
In this dissolution matter, appellant challenges the district court's award of conduct-based attorney fees, arguing that the award is excessive and not supported by the district court's findings. By notice of review, respondent argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) modifying the judgment based on a mistake because the modification does not afford her the same protections as the original judgment, and (2) not holding appellant in contempt for disobeying the judgment. We affirm.

A07-0729, A07-1578
NeoNetworks, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Mark U. Cree, et al.,
Respondents,
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
a California corporation,
Respondent,
John Does 1-50, et al.,
Defendants (A07-729).
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant NeoNetworks, Inc., sued respondents Mark U. Cree, W. Clinton Jurgens, and Cisco Systems, Inc., alleging multiple causes of action, including breaches of fiduciary duty, loyalty, and employment contracts, usurpation of corporate opportunity, and successor liability. The district court, hearing the matter without a jury, granted respondents' rule 41 motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of NeoNetworks' case and later awarded respondents 0,998.06 in costs and disbursements. NeoNetworks appeals the district court's orders.
Because the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous, NeoNetworks failed to show as a matter of law that it was entitled to relief, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in the costs and disbursements award, we affirm.

A07-0759
George O. Welshons,
Relator,
vs.
Superior Truck Auto and Marine Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
CONNOLLY, Judge
Pro se relator challenges an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) decision that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit (1) to accept other employment that did not provide substantially better terms and conditions of employment and (2) without good reason caused by the employer. Because the ULJ's decision is substantially supported by the record, we affirm.

A07-0766
Katina D. Neal,
Relator,
vs.
Wells Fargo Bank NA,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Katina D. Neal challenges her disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) erred in determining that she was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm.

A07-0850
Ramsey County,
Respondent,
Jennifer M. Hare,
f/k/a Jennifer M. Parker,
Respondent,
vs.
Michael K. Grewe,
Appellant.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Michael K. Grewe challenges the child support magistrate's (CSM) order determining past child support due and setting his future child support obligation for the benefit of his child, now in the custody of respondent Jennifer M. Hare. Appellant argues that the amounts of both the past and future awards are not supported by the record evidence of his income.
Because there is evidence in the record supporting the CSM's order for past support due to both respondent and Ramsey County from December 1, 2004, through February 28, 2006, we affirm the CSM's order for reimbursement of past child support for that period of time. But because there is insufficient evidence in the record of appellant's income beginning March 1, 2006, and his current income, we reverse the CSM's order setting future support and remand for further findings on appellant's income.

A07-0926
Jeremy Olsen,
Relator,
vs.
PDS Heart Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
SHUMAKER, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, the pro se relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct. We affirm.

A07-935
Kelly J. Reinke,
Appellant,
vs.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
Respondent.
WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment to respondent, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that appellant's claim for underinsured-motorist benefits was barred by her failure to provide notice of the commencement of a lawsuit against the tortfeasor. We reverse and remand.


A07-1003
Save Our Children, et al.,
Relators,
vs.
Minneapolis Public Schools,
Special School District No. 1,
Respondent.

HARTEN, Judge
Relators challenge the decision of respondent Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District 1 (the district), to close five of its schools. Because the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the district complied with the statutory requirements for giving notice of a public hearing, we affirm.

A07-1050
Daley Farms of Lewiston, LLP,
Appellant,
vs.
Arlo Habben,
d/b/a Southern Minnesota Agronomic
and Environmental Services,
Respondent,
Chosen Valley Testing Associates, Inc.,
Respondent,
Colorado Lining International,
Respondent,
John Heitala,
Respondent,
vs.
Colorado Lining International,
defendant and third party plaintiff,
Respondent,
vs.
Sorenson Bros., Inc.,
third party defendant,
Respondent.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Daley Farms of Lewiston, L.L.P., (Daley Farms) is a large dairy farm operation located in southeastern Minnesota. It challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to six respondents, various parties involved in the design, testing, and construction of four manure holding basins built during a 1997-98 expansion of the operation to support 1,400 head of cattle. The district court granted summary judgment to all respondents, concluding that the two-year statute of limitations for improvements to real property set forth in Minn. Stat. 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2006), bars appellant from recovery. We agree and therefore affirm.

A07-1062
Robert Metzler,
Appellant,
vs.
Robin Lanahan,
Respondent.
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order denying his motion seeking to forfeit respondent's supersedeas bond. Because the district court's conclusion that appellant did not prove that he incurred damages as a result of respondent's appeal is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

A07-1075
Kathleen M. Rooney,
Relator,
vs.
Associated Milk Producers Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) decision to disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits. The ULJ concluded that relator had been sexually harassed, but quit before management was able to take corrective steps. Because relator failed to provide respondent-employer with an opportunity to take timely and appropriate action, we affirm.

A07-1199
Public Housing Agency of the City of Saint Paul,
Appellant,
vs.
Deanna Ewig,
Respondent.
WILLIS, Judge
In this eviction action, appellant housing agency challenges a district-court order denying a writ of restitution. We reverse and remand.

A07-1243
Rudolph Gordon Cooper, Jr.,
Appellant,
vs.
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, et al.,
Respondents.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Rudolph Gordon Cooper, Jr. challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the dismissal of his complaint disputing his obligation to register as a predatory offender pursuant to Minn. Stat. 243.166 (2006). We affirm.

A07-1272
Kenneth H. Youngdahl, Jr., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Wells Fargo Bank, NA,
Appellant,
vs.
HBC Enterprises,
Respondent,
Jeffrey Thomas Phillippi, et al.,
Respondents.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
In this action to quiet title, appellant Wells Fargo Bank, NA, challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent HBC Enterprises. The district court determined that HBC, the purchaser of the sheriff's certificate at the foreclosure sale of the condominium association's assessment lien, held all right, title, and interest in the condominium unit. Appellant argues that its mortgage, although granted after the foreclosure of the assessment lien, survives the expiration of the redemption period of the assessment lien foreclosure because it has priority over the assessment lien under Minn. Stat. 515B.3-116(b)(ii) (2006). Appellant also argues that the district court erred by summarily dismissing its claim for equitable relief.
Because we conclude that the assessment lien did not survive the foreclosure sale and because the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in failing to grant appellant equitable relief, we affirm.

A07-1845
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
C.S. and M.A.Z., Parents.
SHUMAKER, Judge
On appeal, appellant-mother argues that district court's permanent-placement order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of her daughter to the child's paternal aunt is not supported by substantial evidence. Because the district court addressed the required statutory criteria and because its findings are not clearly erroneous, 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.