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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1230
In the Matter of the Estate of:
Arthur Mathewson, deceased.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges a district court order that adopts a probate court referee's order modifying a previous order that awarded appellant the contents of a decedent's safety deposit box. Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in considering newly discovered evidence as the basis for modifying a previous order, we reverse.

A07-1261
In re: Building Wrecker Class B
License Held by Keith Carlson
d/b/a C & H Excavating Co.
HUDSON, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the City of Minneapolis' decision to revoke his business license, arguing that the revocation decision is defective because the city's decision (1) was made upon unlawful procedure; (2) was not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) was arbitrary and capricious. Because we conclude that relator's rights were not violated, and that the city's decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm.

A07-1356
Jerald Alan Hammann,
Appellant,
vs.
Turnstone Calhoun L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company, et al.,
Respondents,
Burnet Title, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.
HUDSON, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court (1) erred in granting summary judgment on certain claims he brought; (2) erred in denying summary judgment to him on other claims; (3) erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to respondents during the jury trial because appellant failed to prove damages; (4) abused its discretion in denying his motions to amend the complaint; (5) abused its discretion in denying his motion to remove the district court judge; and (6) abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. We affirm.

A07-1381
Ben A. Colglazier,
Relator,
vs.
University of Minnesota,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit without good reason caused by his employer. Relator argues that he had good reason to quit because his superiors interfered with his advancement and because his employer reneged on its promise to pay him a salary of ,000. We affirm.

A07-1392
Frank R. Zoubek,
Relator,
vs.
Voyager Electronics Corp.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his employment when he indicated an intent to retire, arguing that it was the employer's decision to discharge him. Because the ULJ properly applied the law and did not abuse his discretion, we affirm.

A07-1417
Michael J. Voll,
Relator,
vs.
Archway Marketing Services, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator brings a certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because of employment misconduct. Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ULJ's determination, we affirm.

A07-1448
James B. Martin, Jr., petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.
JOHNSON, Judge
James B. Martin, Jr. was arrested at the scene of a single-vehicle accident after a preliminary breath test (PBT) showed an elevated alcohol concentration. Martin's driver's license was revoked because he refused to take a chemical test, and the district court sustained the revocation. On appeal, Martin argues that (1) he was denied his limited right to counsel before being asked to submit to a breath test; (2) the district court erred by admitting the result of the PBT at the implied-consent hearing; (3) the district court erred by finding that Martin's refusal to test was not reasonable; and (4) the district court failed to file its order within 14 days after the implied-consent hearing and failed to forward his license to the commissioner of public safety. We conclude that there was no reversible error with respect to any of these contentions and, therefore, affirm.

A07-1489
Joel R. Helgeson, et al.,
Respondents,
vs.
Ronnie C. Franklin,
Appellant,
Argent Mortgage Company, LLC,
Defendant.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Ronnie C. Franklin challenges the district court's issuance of a temporary injunction that prevents him from canceling the contract for deed he entered into with respondents Joel R. Helgeson and Dezra Allen Helgeson, trustees of the Joel R. Helgeson Living Trust. Appellant also requests that the district court judge be removed from this case because he claims the judge is biased against him. We affirm and deny appellant's removal request.

A07-1491
Kari D. Brenes,
Relator,
vs.
Guy Metals Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she engaged in employment misconduct, arguing that (1) her conduct does not constitute employment misconduct; (2) the decision is not supported by substantial evidence; (3) the ULJ erred by failing to make credibility determinations; and (4) the ULJ's rulings denied her a fair hearing. We affirm.

A07-1495
Ronald G. Bushard,
Relator,
vs.
Contractors Edge Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Ronald G. Bushard challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits because he did not actively seek employment, arguing that: (1) the hearing was unfair because relator did not know that his job search would be at issue at the hearing and did not bring his records with him; and (2) the evidence does not support the ULJ's conclusion that relator was not actively seeking suitable employment. We affirm.

A07-1571
In the Matter of the Disability Earnings Offset of Mylan Masson
WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the board of trustees of respondent Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota to deny relator's request to exclude her earnings from her preexisting employment as a community-college administrator when calculating the "reemployment" offset to her disability benefit pursuant to Minn. Stat. 353.656, subd. 4(b) (2006). We affirm.

A07-1637
Vicky A. Dorner,
Relator,
vs.
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
On certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits after April 28, 2007, arguing that she should be allowed benefits for 52 weeks after she began receiving payments in December 2006. Because the ULJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and because relator is not entitled to unemployment benefits under any statute, we affirm.

A07-1639
Lizabeth A. LaVoy,
Relator,
vs.
EdVisions Cooperative Corp.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Lizabeth A. LaVoy challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that because relator quit her job she is not qualified to receive unemployment benefits. Relator argues that she had good reason to quit caused by her employer because (1) her director told her to falsify a report to the department of education (DOE); and (2) conditions were otherwise adverse because her director unfairly criticized and overly scrutinized her work. We affirm.

A07-1643
Heather Von St. James, et al.,
Respondents,
vs.
3M Corporation, et al.,
Defendants,
Ainsworth-Benning,
Appellant.
WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it lacks the minimum contacts required by due process. We reverse.

A07-1700
Craig Berg,
Relator,
vs.
Apol's Harley Davidson Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.
HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct. Relator argues that (1) his conduct did not constitute employment misconduct; (2) he was singled out because he had facial hair, which was unfair because other employees had facial hair; and (3) he was not discharged for employment misconduct because his appearance at work was presentable. We affirm.

A07-1795
In the Matter of William N. Dudley, D.V.M.,
License No. C0858.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relator asserts that respondent's decision to revoke his license to practice veterinary medicine was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. Because we find that respondent's decision was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

A07-1846
Dennis Winskowski, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Kenneth J. Bruss, et al.,
Respondents.
COLLINS, Judge
On appeal from the resolution of this property dispute in respondents' favor, appellants argue that the district court incorrectly determined the intent of the parties' predecessors-in-interest at the time that they platted the land in question. Appellants also challenge the district court's alternative analysis that respondents acquired the disputed land by adverse possession. We affirm.

A07-2248
Richard E. Bosse, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
City of Ottertail, Minnesota,
Respondent,
Dennis Merchant, et al.,
Respondents,
Hexum Building Corp.,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
In this land-use dispute, appellants challenge the district court's judgment in favor of respondents. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' requests for mandamus and injunctive relief, we affirm.

A08-0103
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: H.H. and G.M., Parents.
MINGE, Judge
Appellant challenges the dismissal of its petition to terminate the parental rights of father, arguing that the district court clearly erred by determining that it was not in the child's best interests to terminate his parental rights. We affirm.

A08-0288
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jose (NMN) Garza
HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from an order committing him as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), appellant argues that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is highly likely to reoffend because the actuarial data indicates that he is unlikely to reoffend. Because there is clear and convincing evidence that appellant is highly likely to reoffend, we affirm.

A08-0346
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joshua Phillip Ellringer.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Olmstead County (the county) challenges the district court's order denying its petition to commit respondent Joshua Phillip Ellringer as a Sexually Dangerous Person (SDP). The county argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that it failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) respondent's behavior satisfied the statutory standard for "harmful sexual conduct" as required under the SDP law and (2) respondent was "highly likely" to engage in future acts of harmful sexual conduct as defined in the SDP statute. We affirm.

A08-0430
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Marion Otis Owens.
WORKE, Judge
On appeal from his civil commitment, appellant argues that (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his civil commitment, and (2) the civil-commitment proceedings violated his due-process rights and implicated double-jeopardy concerns. 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.