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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1104

D. Eugene Rogers,
Appellant,

Michalee Rogers,
Plaintiff,

vs.

James W. Hess, et al.,
Respondents.

WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the judgment as a matter of law granted in favor of respondents in his legal-malpractice claim. Because the evidence produced at trial is insufficient as a matter of law to support appellant's claim, we affirm.

A07-1165

Gary H. Newman,
Appellant,

vs.

Tim Marcus, et al.,
Respondents.

JOHNSON, Judge
Gary Newman claimed that Tim and Sheri Marcus owed him approximately ,000 for consulting services that Newman had provided to the Marcuses' dairy farm. Sheri Marcus gave Newman a check in the amount of ,000 with a notation in the bottom, left-hand corner that said, "Final Payment Settlement." Newman cashed the check. Newman later sought to collect the balance of the debt that he claimed was owed. The district court found that the parties had entered into an accord and satisfaction. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the Marcuses. We conclude that the district court's finding of an accord and satisfaction is supported by the evidence and consistent with the applicable caselaw and, therefore, affirm.

A07-1311

Walnut Towers,
Respondent,

vs.

Lori A. Schwan,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal in this eviction matter, appellant-tenant argues that the district court erred in (a) permitting respondent-corporation to appear in district court without the representation of a licensed attorney; (b) entering judgment in favor of respondent-corporation on the basis that appellant's request for reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on respondent-corporation; and (c) granting the request to evict appellant when appellant was not provided with the opportunity to meet with management before filing of the eviction action. Because the district court erred in allowing respondent-corporation to appear in district court without the representation of legal counsel, we reverse.

A07-1350


In re the Petition of:
Lee Warmuth for reasonable visitation
of T.W. (a minor child), petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Gary Koski, et al.,
Appellants.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellants Gary Koski, Pat Koski, and Matthew Koski challenge the district court's order (1) granting respondent Lee Warmuth visitation with T.W., (2) preventing Matthew Koski, T.W.'s father, from moving out of state with T.W., (3) ordering T.W.'s father to place her in therapy, and (4) authorizing respondent to speak with the therapist and review the therapist's records. Because the district court erred in holding that respondent had standing to object to Matthew Koski's removal of T.W. to North Carolina, we reverse and remand.

A07-1408
A07-2115

Houston County,
Respondent,

vs.

Matthew Solum,
Appellant (A07-1408),

and

Matthew Solum, et al.,
Relators (A07-2115),

vs.

Houston County Board of Commissioners,
Respondent.

COLLINS, Judge
In these consolidated appeals, appellant-relator Matthew Solum1 challenges (1) the district court's determination that his property does not conform with Houston County's zoning ordinance and (2) the county's subsequent denial of his application for a conditional-use permit. We affirm.

A07-1500

Santrysa D. Jackson,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator challenges the determination by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that she had "good cause" for not timely filing as that term is defined by Minn. Stat. 268.069, .086, subds. 8-9 (2006). We affirm.

A07-1580

In the Matter of the Decision of the Becker County Zoning Administrator
to Issue a Land Alteration Permit Dated May 23, 2006,
to Thomas and Sandra Alinder.


HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellants Joseph and Jennifer Roach challenge the decision of the Becker County Board of Adjustment (BOA) affirming the zoning administrator's issuance of a land-alteration permit (LAP) to respondents Thomas and Sandra Alinder.2 Because we conclude that the BOA erred in interpreting the Becker County zoning ordinances and failed to make adequate findings and provide reasons for its decision, we reverse and remand.

A07-1641

Judy M. Patterson,
Relator,

vs.

Elderwood of Hinckley,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct for lying to her employer during an investigation of relator's use of an emergency call button. We affirm.

A07-1691

Curtis Foss,
Respondent,

vs.

Alan Robert Vaughn,
Appellant.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a harassment restraining order, appellant argues that he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing, the district court judge was disqualified for bias, and the evidence does not support the order. We affirm.

A07-1715


In re: Estate of Mary Victorine Carpentier Torgersen,
a/k/a Mary V. Torgersen, Decedent.


HUSPENI, Judge
In this appeal from the district court's award of attorney fees to respondent, appellant argues that the district court's findings are erroneous and insufficient and that the award was unreasonable as a matter of law. We affirm.

A07-1772


Mary Jo Brooks Hunter, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Michael Anthony Owen,
Appellant.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant challenges the decision of a child support magistrate (CSM) to continue his child-support obligation, arguing that (1) respondent's motion to continue child support was not properly served and (2) the CSM's findings are erroneous. We affirm.

A07-1777

Josh L. Parrow,
Relator,

vs.

Yellow Transportation Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator argues that he was improperly dismissed from his job as a truck driver for employment misconduct and wrongly denied unemployment benefits. Because the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct is substantially supported by evidence in the record, we affirm.

A07-1848


In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship
of Millicent S. Ficken.

HALBROOKS, Judge
In this conservatorship proceeding, appellant challenges the district court's conclusion that it had subject-matter jurisdiction to impose a conservatorship under Minn. Stat. 524.5-106 (2006), contending that the district court erroneously construed the statute to apply to her and her property even though she is domiciled in Wisconsin and has no property to speak of within Minnesota. Because we conclude that Minn. Stat. 524.5106 does not provide the district court with jurisdiction over appellant's conservatorship proceeding, we reverse.

A07-1971

In re the Marriage of:
Chris N. Carlson, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Alyssa D. Carlson,
Appellant.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal in this dispute regarding where the parties' child would attend school, pro-se appellant mother argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering that the child attend school in the Mound school district because the court did not address the best interest factors of Minn. Stat. 518.17, subd. 1 (2006), and made findings unsupported by the record. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

A07-2298

In Re the Marriage of:
Denise Marie Notsch, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Allen Walter Notsch,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge
Denise Notsch appeals from the judgment and decree that dissolved her marriage to Allen Notsch. She argues that the district court should have awarded her spousal maintenance, that its findings lack the required specificity to support a child-support award, that the district court should have awarded her a portion of Allen Notsch's nonmarital property, and that the district court should have granted her motion to amend the judgment. Denise Notsch's testimony supports the district court's spousal maintenance award, but because the district court's findings do not provide adequate discussion to allow us to conclude that it considered the factors relevant to determining spousal maintenance, we reverse and remand. Because the district court's factual findings show that it considered the statutory child-support factors and because Denise Notsch fails to show how the district court abused its discretion by awarding her no interest in nonmarital property or by denying her motion to amend, we affirm in part.

A08-0048


Tammy Sue Holl,
Appellant,

vs.

Itasca County Health and Human Services,
Respondent,

Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Respondent.


TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Tammy Sue Holl challenges the decision by respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services (the commissioner) to deny her medical-assistance coverage for a residential treatment program for nicotine dependence, in an appeal from an adverse decision by the district court. Respondent Itasca County Health and Human Services did not file a brief but joins in the brief submitted by the commissioner. Because substantial evidence supports the decision by the commissioner and because Holl cannot prevail on her constitutional claims, we affirm.

A08-0311


In re the Marriage of:

Antonio I. Kartalozi, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Melissa Kartalozi,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
On appeal in this parenting-time dispute that has spanned five years, Antonio Kartalozi argues that the district court abused its discretion, first, by indefinitely suspending his parenting time and, second, by imposing conditions for resuming supervised parenting time. Because the district court properly applied the law, reasonably exercised its discretion, and relied on findings that were well supported by the record, 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.