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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

In re the Marriage of:

Michael Joseph Saul, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Danetta Parker Saul,
Appellant.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal in this dissolution matter, appellant argues that the
district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to credit her in the
property division with certain private-school tuition she paid for the
parties' children; (2) overvaluing certain retirement funds and not
accounting for certain taxes on those funds; (3) failing to treat a
certain tax obligation incurred by appellant as marital; (4)
understating the marital portion of an investment account; (5)
overstating the marital portion of her retirement plan and failing to
properly account for the taxes due on those funds; and (6) finding that
respondent adequately traced his nonmarital interest in a business.
Because we find no clear error in the district-court findings, we
affirm.
= = = =
A05-2079

ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

KMG America Corporation, a Virginia company, et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellants ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation,
and ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York corporation
(collectively ReliaStar), challenge the denial of their motion for a
temporary injunction seeking to enjoin respondents KMG America
Corporation, a Virginia company, Kanawha Insurance Company, a South
Carolina company, Kenneth Kuk, T. J. Gibb, Paul Kraemer, and Paul Moore
from misappropriating ReliaStar's trade secrets and using confidential
information in breach of the common-law duty of loyalty and breach of
fiduciary duty. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion, we affirm its denial of a temporary injunction.
= = = =
A05-2115

Sia Yang,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges the decision that he was unable to work and,
therefore, ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because the record
shows that relator was unable to work only in the health-care industry
but not other industries, we reverse.
= = = =
A05-2188
A05-2474

Connie Phyllis Gustafson, petitioner,
Appellant (A05-2188),

Gregory Wayne Helland, petitioner,
Appellant (A05-2474),

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
The district court, in separate proceedings, sustained the
revocation of Connie Gustafson's and Gregory Helland's driving
privileges for driving while impaired. In these consolidated appeals,
both challenge the admissibility of alcohol-concentration-test results
that were obtained following the administration of a preliminary
screening test that indicated an alcohol concentration greater than
0.08. Because the police officer in each case administered the
screening test according to the requirements of Minn. Stat. ? 169A.41
(2004) and consistent with the United States and Minnesota
Constitutions, we affirm.
= = = =
A05-2219

In re the Marriage of:
Lori Irene Busch, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Rob Dee Busch,
Appellant.

WILLIS, Judge
In this appeal from a dissolution judgment, appellant challenges the
district court's calculation of the parties' marital and nonmarital
interests in the parties' real property and the division of the marital
interest in the parties' homestead. Because the district court did not
make the findings that are necessary for us to review its determination
of the parties' marital and nonmarital interest in the parties'
homestead, we reverse and remand.
= = = =
A05-2225

In re PEMSTAR, Inc.
Derivative Litigation.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from a judgment approving a settlement in a shareholder
derivative action, appellant, who objected to the proposed settlement,
argues that the district court (a) erred in holding that appellant
lacked standing to object to the proposed settlement; (b) erred in
ruling that the notice of settlement complied with the requirements of
due process; (c) abused its discretion in ruling that the settlement
agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate because the court failed to
perform the required analysis or create an adequate record for judicial
review; and (d) failed to ensure that the named plaintiffs had standing
to settle the lawsuit. Because we conclude that appellant lacked
standing to object to the settlement agreement, we affirm and decline to
address the remaining issues.
= = = =
A06-11

Priscilla Womack,
Appellant,

Nelson Womack,

Appellant,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's summary judgment dismissing
their employment-discrimination claims. Because there are no genuine
issues of material fact as to whether respondent engaged in unfair
discriminatory practices, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-93

Catherine M. Sinn, as Trustee for the Next of Kin
of Sherri L. DeWald, Deceased,
Appellant,

vs.

Merianne Gerving,
Respondent.

PARKER, Judge
Respondent Gerving held a birthday party for her 16-year-old
daughter, at which there was underage drinking. Sherri DeWald, daughter
of appellant Sinn, was killed as she played on nearby railroad tracks
after Gerving asked the party attendees to leave her home. Sinn brought
a wrongful-death action alleging negligent supervision and negligent
eviction by Gerving. Sinn contends that the district court, in granting
Gerving's motion for summary judgment, erred (1) in ruling that Sinn's
claim was preempted by the Civil Damages Act, Minn. Stat. ? 340A.801
(2002) and (2) in denying Sinn's motion to amend her complaint to add a
claim for punitive damages. We affirm.
= = = =
A06-569

In re the Marriage of:
Todd S. Wheeler, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Julie Ann Wheeler, n/k/a Julie Ann Thesing,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Todd S. Wheeler challenges the district court's denial
of his motion for review of an order from a child support magistrate
(CSM) that denied appellant's motion for an order requiring respondent
Julie Ann Wheeler, n/k/a Julie Ann Thesing, to contribute to the
boarding school expenses of the parties' child. Because we see no abuse
of discretion in the district court's denial, we affirm.
= = = =
A06-803

SaberLee DeMare,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Department of Human Services,
Respondent,

Lake County Welfare Board,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant SaberLee DeMare challenges an agency decision and
district court order interpreting Minn. Stat. ? 256B.0625, subd. 3a
(Supp. 2005), which precludes medical-assistance coverage of
sex-reassignment surgery. Appellant argues that (1) respondent
Minnesota Department of Human Services erred by interpreting the statute
to bar coverage for appellant, who filed a request for surgery but whose
request had not yet been reviewed by the statute's effective date; and
(2) the district court erred by failing to address his equal protection
claim under Minnesota law. We affirm respondent's decision and remand
to the district court for consideration of appellant's equal protection
claim.
= = = =
A06-255

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
B. B. and W. S., Parents.

WRIGHT, Judge

Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motion to
vacate a default order and termination of their parental rights.
Appellants argue that (1) the district court erred in denying their
motion and in failing to make findings that address the criteria for
vacating a default order; (2) the default proceedings violated due
process of law; (3) the termination of parental rights lacked
evidentiary support; and (4) the district court adopted
respondent-county's proposed findings without an independent review. 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.