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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1664

In the Matter of the Administrative Penalty Order Issued to

Causeway on Gull Association, Inc.

STONEBURNER, Judge

In this certiorari review, relator, a nonprofit corporation created to manage, maintain, and operate a timeshare development, challenges respondent Minnesota Department of Healths grant of summary disposition holding that relator is required to obtain a lodging license under Minn. Stat. 157.15, subd. 1 (2006). Because there are no disputed material facts and there was no error in application of the law, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-1915

Timothy P. Rajkowski,

Appellant,

vs.

Melissa Christensen, et al.,

Respondents,

Central Minnesota Federal Credit Union,

Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge

Appellant challenges the district courts ruling that he was not entitled to a prescriptive easement over land adjacent to his. Because the district courts decision was substantially supported by the evidence and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant the equitable remedy of prescriptive easement, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-1941

Jean M. Studniski,

Relator,

vs.

Baja St. Cloud LLC,

Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

MINGE, Judge

Relator brings a certiorari appeal from the determination of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Because we conclude that relator quit for good reason caused by her employer, we reverse.

= = = =

A07-2001

Denise Weidner, o/b/o Autumn Hanson, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

Jeffrey Dean Hurt, o/b/o Jordan Dean Hurt,

Respondent.

LARKIN, Judge

Pro-se appellant-mother Denise Weidner (mother) and Eric Hanson (father) have a daughter, born August 1, 1998, who is in mothers physical custody. Father is married to Jennifer Hanson (wife) who has a son, born September 29, 1992, from her prior relationship with Jeffrey Hurt. Hurt has physical custody of son. Mother appeals the dismissal of a harassment restraining order (HRO) proceeding that mother filed on behalf of daughter, against Hurt on behalf of son. Mothers request for an HRO was based on allegations that son abused daughter. Hurt was served notice of the HRO proceeding, but did not appear or otherwise represent son. Mother did not name wife in the HRO petition. The district court dismissed the HRO proceeding after the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 14, 2007, pursuant to wifes request. Respondent did not file a brief in this appeal. This court issued an order under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03, stating that the case would be decided by the panel on the merits. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-2133

In re the Marriage of:

Luanne Sylvia Baumgartner, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

Larry Charles Baumgartner,

Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, appellant Luanne Sylvia Baumgartner argues that the district court abused its discretion in declining to award her spousal maintenance and in awarding respondent Larry Charles Baumgartner a disproportionate share of the marital estate and that it erred in valuing marital assets and in failing to rule on her motion to impose sanctions for discovery violations. Because we see an abuse of discretion in the denial of spousal maintenance, we reverse it and remand for further findings; because we see no abuse of discretion in the division of property and no error in the valuation of marital assets or in the failure to rule on the motion for sanctions, we affirm those determinations.

= = = =

A07-2168

M & I Marshall Ilsley Bank,

Appellant,

vs.

Michael V. DuPont, et al.,

Defendants,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Respondent,

Clarice Von Behren,

Respondent,

and

In the Matter of the Petitioner,

Clarice K. Von Behren.

HUDSON, Judge

On appeal from summary judgment in this lien dispute, appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that the mortgage was satisfied in November 1997, and, therefore, appellant was precluded from foreclosing on the mortgage. Appellant also contends that the district court erred in determining that appellant was barred from asserting an interest in the encumbered property because respondent Clarice Von Behren was not a good faith purchaser of the property. Because the mortgage was satisfied in November 1997 and no longer enforceable after that date, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0405

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. A. B. and R. A., Parents

PETERSON, Judge

Appellant mother argues that because (1) the record lacks evidence of reasonable efforts by respondent county to reunite her with the child, (2) respondent county was not joined as a party at the beginning of the termination proceeding, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the courts termination order, the district court erred in terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1193

Scott E. Jones,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge

Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing his claim as barred by the Feres doctrine of intramilitary immunity. Because the district court correctly determined that review of appellants military status was barred by the Feres doctrine, we affirm in part. But because the district court erred in finding this doctrine applicable to appellants administrative claims, we reverse in part and remand.

= = = =

A07-1676

Harvey Lawhorn,

Appellant,

LeVares Pearson,

Plaintiff,

vs.

State of Minnesota,

Minnesota Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge

In this race-discrimination case, appellant challenges the district courts grant of summary judgment to respondent. Appellant argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether respondents reason for issuing him an oral reprimand was pretextual. Because we agree that a genuine issue of material fact exists, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the district court.
 

 
 
 

  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.