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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A08-0153

Jeffrey A. Peterson,
Respondent,

vs.

Dennis J. Harward,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
This appeal requires us to decide whether Dennis Harward, who promised to repay Jeffrey Peterson ,000, may avoid defending Peterson's Hennepin County lawsuit for Harward's failure to keep that promise. Harward contends that he lacks sufficient contacts with the State of Minnesota to establish the district court's personal jurisdiction to hale him from his Colorado residence. But he cannot contradict that he telephoned Peterson in Minnesota, discussing the underlying loan; that he electronically mailed Peterson in Minnesota regarding the loan; that he sent a facsimile to Peterson in Minnesota, conveying the promissory note to memorialize his duty to repay the loan; and that as a result of these communications, Peterson sent ,000 from his Minnesota financial institution to Harward. The district court denied Harward's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because Harward had sufficient contacts with Minnesota and the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0197

Eric R. Mitzuk,
Relator,

vs.

Davlyn Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits after he was discharged for employment misconduct because of a verbal outburst during an argument with his supervisor. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0254

Morgan Goetz,
Respondent,

vs.

Independent School District No. 625,
St. Paul Schools,
Appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge
Fourteen-year-old Morgan Goetz was injured while performing a difficult gymnastics maneuver in an educational program offered by Independent School District No. 625. She later sued the school district for negligence. The school district moved for summary judgment on the ground that it is entitled to recreational-use immunity, but the district court denied the motion. We conclude that the school district is entitled to recreational-use immunity and, therefore, reverse.

= = = =

A08-0398

Patrick Cammisuli,
Relator,

vs.

The Professional Garage Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

BJORKMAN, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. Because the ULJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm.
= = = =

A08-0482

In re the Marriage of:
JoAnne Kay Delaney, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Patrick James Delaney,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
In this spousal-maintenance modification dispute, appellant argues that the district court: (1) improperly considered new evidence in granting respondent's motion for amended findings of fact; (2) abused its discretion by reducing respondent's maintenance obligation; (3) abused its discretion by making the maintenance modification retroactive to the date of the original motion; and (4) abused its discretion by denying appellant's request for need-based attorney fees. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0512

Julie L. Closner,
Appellant,

vs.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Company,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment, appellant insured challenges the district court's determination that coverage exclusions in an automobile-insurance policy were not ambiguous and barred coverage. Because we conclude that the exclusions are ambiguous and do not bar coverage, we reverse.

= = = =

A08-0515

William D. Paul,
Appellant,

vs.

Gerald J. Brown, as Trustee for the Heirs of Mairead Kenney, deceased,
Respondent,
Rosemary Kenney,
Respondent,

vs.

A Plus Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,
Keith Byron Levings, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants,

vs.

Allstate Insurance Company,
Intervenor.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to establish and enforce an attorney's lien on settlement proceeds received by respondents, his former clients. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting discovery and did not err in its application of Minn. Stat. 481.13 (2008), to the facts, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0568

In the Matter of:
Pauline Mary Welsand, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Theodore Robert Welsand,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant mother challenges the district court's denial of her petition, filed on behalf of herself and the minor children of the parties, for a domestic-abuse order for protection against respondent father. Because the district court did not display bias against appellant and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance of an order for protection, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0642

Cottage Industries, LLC,
Appellant,

vs.

Gregory Yetter,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant challenges summary judgment granted to respondent, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing its action to recover amounts loaned to respondent as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Because the district court erred in the application of res judicata, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A08-0798
A08-0799


In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
A. L. W. and J. C., Jr., Parents.


LANSING, Judge
In this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, ALW and JC, Jr. (JC) challenge the district court's findings supporting three grounds for terminating their parental rights: that they failed to abide by the duties of the parent-child relationship, that they failed to correct the conditions that led to out-of-home placement, and that the child is neglected and in foster care. JC challenges the district court's findings supporting termination on the additional ground of palpable unfitness. Because the record provides clear and convincing evidence to support each of the statutory grounds for termination and establishes that the termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0970

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. L. P., Parent

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant-mother argues that the district court erred when it adopted the county's proposed findings verbatim without independent review. Because our review of the record does not allow us to determine whether the district court's decision was independently made, we reverse.

 

 
 
 

  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.