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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1344

Kenneth Kemnitz,
Respondent,

vs.

Richard Whinnery, et al.,
Appellants.

ROSS, Judge
This appeal arises from appellants Richard Whinnery and David Reimer's purchase of the right to redeem a gravel pit, Kemnitz Sand & Gravel, Inc., that respondent Kenneth Kemnitz owned before financial problems led to its foreclosure. Kemnitz sued Whinnery and Reimer raising various tort and contract claims, alleging that he had a contract with Whinnery and Reimer to broker the sale between them and Skluzacek Oil Company in exchange for payment, which he never received. At trial, the district court dismissed most of Kemnitz's claims. The jury determined that Whinnery and Reimer were liable for the remaining claims, including breach of contract, and assigned 0,400 in damages, which the district court reduced to 3,367 based on the parties' pre-verdict stipulation of maximum potential damages. Whinnery and Reimer appeal, and we affirm.

A07-1573

GSS Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Nathan Weiner & Associates,
Respondent,

vs.

Daniel Greenstein,
Appellant,

Standke, Green & Greenstein, Ltd.,
Defendant

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the jury's finding that he conspired with a party to a noncompete contract to intentionally cause a breach of the contract and/or conspired with a nonparty to interfere with the noncompete contract is contrary to law.1 Because the verdict is contrary to law, we reverse the denial of appellant's motion for JMOL.

A07-1616

In re the Matter of:
Sara J. Barona, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Carlos Alfonso Barona-Ayala,
Appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge
In July 2007, Carlos Alfonso Barona-Ayala had a heated argument with his wife, Sara J. Barona. At a hearing on her petition for an order for protection (OFP), she testified that he pushed her into their bedroom, locked the door, verbally abused her, and slapped her. The district court found that Barona-Ayala's conduct put Barona in reasonable fear of imminent harm and, accordingly, issued an OFP. Barona-Ayala appeals, arguing that the district court erred in certain evidentiary rulings and in granting the OFP. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm.

A07-1657

Abdi Noor Dolal, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission,
Respondent.


HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motion seeking an injunction to bar enforcement of respondent's ordinances 102 and 106. Appellants argue that enforcement of the ordinances infringes on their right of religious freedom of exercise established in the Minnesota Constitution. We affirm.

A07-1719

Gregory B. Lindwall,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
On certiorari appeal, relator argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) erred in holding that 50% of his weekly social security old-age benefits should be deducted from his unemployment benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. 268.085, subd. 4(a) (2006), during the several-month period in which his social security old-age benefits were being withheld to recoup an earlier overpayment. Because the ULJ properly applied Minn. Stat. 268.085, subd. 4(a), we affirm.

A07-1753

Michael James Brouillette,
Appellant,

vs.

Jennifer Lee Lund,
Respondent.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Pro se appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his case, which involved a conciliation-court claim that had been removed to the district court, because appellant failed to appear in district court when the case was called for trial. We affirm.

A07-1841

In the Matter of the Determination of
Correctional Service Retirement Plan Benefits
of Lori Hanson.

HUSPENI, Judge
Relator Lori Hanson challenges the decision of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Board of Trustees that she should be admitted to the correctional plan on a prospective basis and contends that she should have been admitted on a retroactive basis dating back to July 2000. Because the PERA Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse and remand.

A07-1875


David L. Stussy, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Gabbert and Gabbert Company, LLLP, et al.,
Respondents,

Burnet Realty, Inc. d/b/a Coldwell Banker Burnet, et al.,
Respondents.

LANSING, Judge
This appeal centers on a purchase agreement for three units of a common-interest-ownership project in Edina. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing David Stussy's four-count complaint against the project's developers and real-estate broker and denying his motion for partial summary judgment, and Stussy appeals. Because he has failed to establish essential elements of his claims under the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the common-law doctrine of fraud in the inducement, we affirm.

A07-2358

Sarah Jewell, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Dorothy Backes, individually, and
d/b/a Maywood Road B's Thoroughbred Farm,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment against them on their negligence and scienter claims arising out of an injury sustained from a horse bite that occurred on respondent's farm. Because the injury was not foreseeable and appellants failed to demonstrate that the horse had vicious propensities, we affirm.

A07-2439

Veronica Renee Ellis, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Matthew Russell Jacob,
Appellant,

Pamela Standing-Brumbaugh, intervenor,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's decision granting sole legal and physical custody of his two children to intervenor, arguing that the district court (1) erred by applying Minn. Stat. 257C.03 (2006) instead of Minn. Stat. 518.18 (2006) in its analysis and (2) abused its discretion when applying Minn. Stat. 257C.03. Because the district court properly applied Minn. Stat 257C.03 and because it was not an abuse of discretion to award sole physical and legal custody of the children to intervenor, we affirm.

A08-0477

In re the Marriage of:
Yasmeen Khan, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Asber Asher Ansar,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
Asber Ansar appeals from the district court's issuance of a harassment restraining order, which restricted his parenting time and removed his legal custody of his child by conferring sole legal custody to his former wife, Yasmeen Khan. Ansar maintains that the district court lacked authority to restrict his parenting time because he had harassed only Khan and not their child, and he contends that the court abused its discretion by modifying custody without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Ansar also challenges the district court's requirement that he pay Khan's attorney fees without first issuing and allowing him to respond to a show-cause order. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by restricting Ansar's parenting time. But because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by modifying custody without an evidentiary hearing and by awarding attorney fees without first issuing an order to show cause and allowing Ansar to respond, we reverse those parts of the district court's order, and we remand.
 

 
 
 

  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.