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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-0828

Gary D. Burk,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge
Relator appeals an unemployment law judge's (ULJ's) determination that because he did not show that he was actively seeking suitable employment he was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm.

A07-0999

Acceptance Insurance Company,
Appellant,

vs.

Ross Contractors, Inc.,
Respondent,

Charles D. Nolan & Sons, Inc.,
Respondent,

Century Surety Company, et al.,
Defendants.

MINGE, Judge
This appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action initiated by appellant insurer to determine its liability to respondent building owner for damages resulting from the work of its insured, a roofing contractor. Appellant insurer challenges the district court's decision that liability for the underlying jury award against the roofing contractor for negligence is covered under its policy, that none of the policy exclusions are applicable, and that the bankruptcy of the roofing contractor does not relieve appellant of its obligations to respondent. Appellant also claims the recovery exceeds the policy limits. Respondent claims the policy limits do not apply to postjudgment interest. We affirm the district court's determinations that the bankruptcy does not relieve appellant of its obligation and that the policy exclusions are not applicable. Because the policy limits recovery for property damage to ,000,000, we modify the jury award to comply with that limit. Finally, we determine that respondent is entitled to postjudgment interest without regard to the policy limits.
A07-1224

Marjorie K. Ledin,
Relator,

vs.

Cortec Enterprises LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

JOHNSON, Judge
An unemployment law judge (ULJ) found that Cortec Enterprises LLC terminated the employment of Marjorie K. Ledin because she repeatedly failed to follow company policies and procedures. Accordingly, the ULJ determined that Ledin was terminated for employment misconduct and, thus, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Ledin appeals by way of a writ of certiorari, arguing that the ULJ's findings are erroneous, that she did not receive a fair hearing, and that the ULJ erred in ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence. We affirm.
A07-1225

Guy A. Plante,
Relator,

vs.

J & C Trucking of Forest Lake Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), who concluded that relator was disqualified for unemployment benefits because he quit without good reason caused by his employer. Because the ULJ properly applied the law and because the findings are substantially supported by the evidence, we affirm.

A07-1302


Elaine H. Moriarty,
Relator

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank NA,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) employed relator Elaine Moriarty as a full-time sub-prime loan processor from August 22, 2005 to March 2, 2007. Relator quit her employment less than two weeks after Wells Fargo issued a performance improvement plan (PIP) to address her performance deficiencies. Relator now appears before this court pro se on a writ of certiorari, challenging the ULJ's denial of her request for unemployment benefits. Because we find no error in the ULJ's determination that relator quit her employment for other than good cause attributable to Wells Fargo and was thus disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, we affirm.


A07-1351

Jay K. Farhat,
Relator,

vs.

GGNSC Wayzata LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge
Relator appeals an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that he was discharged from employment as a result of misconduct and is therefore disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits. Because the record does not support the conclusion that relator engaged in employment misconduct, we reverse.

A07-1470

Stephenne McGinnis,
Respondent,

vs.

Maria Yvonne McGinnis, et al.,
Defendants,

Ronald Lyle Kopeska,
Appellant.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
On appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial in an automobile-collision case, appellant asserts that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because the district court (1) improperly admitted evidence of his law license suspension and his consumption of an alcoholic beverage prior to the collision and (2) erroneously instructed the jury that his failure to comply with a construction-zone speed limit constituted negligence per se. Appellant also argues that the evidence does not support the jury's verdict. We affirm.

A07-1588

Kristine Austin,
Relator,

vs.

Minnehaha Falls Corporation,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that her employment at respondent-employer's restaurant was terminated for misconduct and that therefore she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record supports the ULJ's determination, we affirm.

A07-1596
A07-2415

US Federal Credit Union,
Respondent,

vs.

Avidigm Capital Group, Inc.,
Respondent,

Steven J. Mattson,
Respondent,

Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.,
Appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge
Two companies--US Federal Credit Union (USFCU) and Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.--held interests in a parcel of real property in Carver County when the owners defaulted on both loans. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that USFCU's interest in the property is superior to that of Homecomings. On appeal, Homecomings argues that the district court erred because its decision is contrary to a default judgment of the same court concerning the same property and because Homecomings registered its interest with the county registrar before USFCU registered its interest. We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply and that Homecomings' interest lapsed when it failed to redeem its interest following a sheriff's sale of the property. Therefore, we affirm.

A07-1751

Richard F. Kpasie,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Veterans Homes,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he lacked jurisdiction to hear relator's appeal because it was untimely filed. Because the ULJ's decision was correct, we affirm.

A07-1893


In re the Marriage of:
Shelly Elaine Emblom
n/k/a Shelly Elaine Green, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

John William Emblom,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Shelly Elaine Emblom, n/k/a Shelly Elaine Green, challenges the district court's denial of her motions to convert her award of 10 years of temporary maintenance to permanent maintenance, to increase the monthly maintenance amount, and for an award of conduct-based attorney fees. Because appellant failed to sustain her burden of proving that she had not rehabilitated to the marital standard of living, we affirm the district court's denial of permanent maintenance, but because the district court's findings are so cursory as to prevent meaningful appellate review, we reverse and remand the district court's order denying appellant an increase in her temporary maintenance. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award appellant conduct-based attorney fees.

A07-2304

In the Matter of the Welfare of the
Children of: M. R., Parent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant M.R. challenges the district court's denial of her motion to vacate the default judgment terminating her parental rights. Appellant argues that the district court erred in (1) the procedures it used during the default proceeding, (2) refusing to vacate the default judgment, and (3) denying her motions to transfer legal custody. In addition, appellant asserts that the district court made incorrect findings of fact that, in combination with other errors, warrant reversal of the default judgment. Because the district court properly exercised its discretion in this matter, we affirm.

A08-0456

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Don Edward Neff

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order civilly committing him as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that the court erred in deferring to the opinions of the examiners and that his actions did not constitute a course of harmful sexual conduct. 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.