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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2063

Jessica Pittman,
Relator,

vs.

Dakota County Community Development Agency,
Respondent.


SHUMAKER, Judge
On appeal from respondent's ruling terminating her eligibility to receive public housing assistance, relator argues that the record does not support the determination that she allowed an unauthorized adult to live in her housing unit, that the respondent failed to consider all the relevant evidence, and that the ruling did not contain sufficiently specific findings. Because respondent failed to make findings of fact to support its decision to terminate relator's public housing benefits and because the legal basis for termination is unclear, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A07-2440


Andrew Ellis,
Relator,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
On remand following Andrew Ellis's initial appeal from an order by the City of Minneapolis to raze Ellis's fire-damaged building, the city promulgated written findings and renewed its determination, under the city's nuisance-abatement ordinances, that the building should be demolished. By writ of certiorari, Ellis again appeals the city's demolition order and asks that the new findings be stricken from the record. Because the findings were properly prepared and presented to council members, we include them as part of the record and conclude that the city proceeded lawfully and arrived at a decision that has a legal and substantial basis. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0110

Terry C. Colton, et al. d/b/a Scenic Point Resort,
Appellants,

vs.

Clitherall Township,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellants, owners of Scenic Point Resort, assert that they were improperly assessed for the paving of two roads in Clitherall Township. Specifically, appellants argue that respondent failed to provide an assessment methodology as required by Minn. Stat. 429.031, subd. 1 (2004), that the assessment exceeded the benefit to their property, and that the advertisement and letting of bids did not comply with Minn. Stat. 429.041, subd. 1 (2004). Because respondent complied with Minn. Stat. 429.031, the benefit to appellants' property did exceed the assessment, and any argument regarding the bidding process is waived, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0154

In re the Marriage of:
Eugene Everett Schollen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Karri Lynn Schollen, n/k/a Karri Lynn Linke,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant brought a motion before a child-support magistrate (CSM) to reduce his child-support obligation, arguing that there was a substantial decrease in his income. The CSM denied this motion, the district court affirmed, and appellant now appeals to this court. Because the district court did not make a finding explaining why the rebuttable presumption found in Minn. Stat. 518A.29, subd. (e) (2006), that foster care subsidies are not included in gross income has been overcome, we remand.

= = = =

A08-0191

In re the Marriage of:
Deborah Lee Olson, fka
Deborah Lee Tuchtenhagen, co-petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Howard Otto Tuchtenhagen, co-petitioner,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of her post-dissolution motion, arguing that (1) Minnesota's anti-palimony statutes divest the district court of jurisdiction; (2) the district court improperly amended the property division set forth in the dissolution judgment and decree; (3) the district court erroneously found that payments made to appellant during the parties' post-judgment cohabitation constituted payments toward the property settlement; (4) the district court abused its discretion in applying the doctrines of laches and unjust enrichment; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by not awarding appellant conduct-based attorney fees. Because the record supports the district court's order, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0205

Linda Carter,
Respondent,

vs.

Alexander Lakanu,
Appellant,

Oluwatoyin T. Lakanu,
Defendant

COLLINS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's decisions leading to summary judgment in favor of respondents, arguing that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence raising a genuine issue of fact. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0313

In re the Marriage of:
James Richard Huntsman, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Zenith Annette Huntsman, f/k/a Zenith Annette Morgan,
Respondent,
and
County of Washington, intervenor,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant, in this most recent of several appeals, challenges the district court's denial of his motion to vacate respondent county's income-withholding order, and, alternatively, to require withholding of health-insurance premiums. We affirm the district court's denial of the motion to vacate the income-withholding order. But we reverse the district court's denial of the alternative motion to require withholding of health-insurance premiums that are designated as maintenance, and remand to the district court with instructions to order county to withhold the full amount of court-ordered maintenance.

= = = =

A08-0442

Itron, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

WEB Construction, Inc.,
Appellant.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant, a general contractor on a construction project for respondent, challenges the district court's order granting respondent's motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying appellant's motion to vacate the award based on the arbitrator's alleged failure to disclose a conflict of interest, evident partiality, and manifest disregard of the law. We affirm.

= = = =


A08-0542


Angela Hahn,
Relator,

vs.

Adecco USA Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Adecco USA, Inc. (Adecco) is a business that provides supplemental staff to other businesses. In the summer of 2007, relator Angela Hahn was terminated from her light assembly job assignment in Shakopee for performance issues. Adecco offered relator another assignment in Eden Prairie at a higher hourly wage, but relator rejected this offer and left her employment with Adecco. She then sought unemployment compensation, claiming that she lacked transportation to get to the new job assignment offered by Adecco. Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that she voluntarily quit her employment. Because the record supports the ULJ's decision, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0552

Pamela Kay Twetten,
Appellant,

vs.

American Legion Post 212,
Respondent.


CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant slipped into a hole in the ice while participating in an ice-fishing contest organized by respondent. She brought a negligence suit against respondent. The district court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, holding that (1) respondent did not owe a duty to appellant, (2) the dangers presented to appellant by the holes drilled in the frozen lake were known or obvious, and (3) the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied and acted as a complete bar to appellant's recovery. Because the dangers presented to appellant by the holes were known or obvious, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

= = = =

A08-0712

Marlys Larsen,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Spicer,
Respondent.

LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of her special assessment appeal involving five parcels of property. Because the district court erroneously concluded that appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal under Minn. Stat. 429.081 (2008) as to four of those parcels, we reverse in part and remand. But we agree that appellant failed to perfect her appeal as to the fifth parcel. We therefore affirm the district court's order as to this parcel.

= = =

A08-0842

Angela Sue Saurdiff,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Commissioner of Health,
Respondent.

A08-0842

Angela Sue Saurdiff,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Commissioner of Health,
Respondent.


STAUBER, Judge
Relator challenges a decision by the Minnesota Commissioner of Health not to set aside her disqualification from providing direct contact services to persons receiving services from certain licensed facilities. Because the commissioner's conclusion that relator poses a risk of harm to those in her care is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse.

= = = =

A08-0876

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. K.
a/k/a R. T., T. L. B. J. and J. L. R., Parents.

HUSPENI, Judge
In this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, appellant R.K. challenges the district court's findings supporting four grounds for terminating her parental rights: (1) failure to abide by the duties of the parent-child relationship; (2) failure to rebut the presumption that she is palpably unfit; (3) failure to correct the conditions that led to out-of-home placement; and (4) the children are neglected and in foster care. Appellant also challenges the district court's choice of terminating her parental rights instead of granting her petition to transfer legal custody of the children. 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 children's best interests, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0910

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Samuel Ivory Cox, a/k/a Frederick Marcell Brown,
Chris Jenson, Chris Jensen, James I. Rucker;
Legal Name: Tishawn Tyrese Terius Brent.

HUSPENI, Judge
On appeal from his indeterminate commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP), appellant argues that (1) the district court erred by refusing to revoke his supervised release and ordering his return to prison rather than ordering his civil commitment; (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a one-year continuance; (3) the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a new trial based on his contention that he was not allowed to choose his second examiner; (4) the trial judge should have been removed; (5) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (6) the evidence was too remote in time to support his commitment. 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.