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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2319

In re the Marriage of:
Maria del Pilar Hartshorn, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Evan Lawrence Hartshorn,
Appellant.

COLLINS, Judge
Evan Hartshorn, appealing pro se, (1) contends that the district court abused its discretion in the conduct of the hearings and (2) challenges the district court's findings and conclusions. Seeing no abuse of discretion or error on the part of the district court and because the findings and conclusions are supported by the record, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0148

Jeffrey Noack, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Colson Construction, Inc., et al.,
defendants and third party plaintiffs,
Respondents,

vs.

Scherer Bros. Lumber Co.,
third party defendant,
Respondent,

Mark Entsminger d/b/a Mark's Stucco,
third party defendant,
Respondent,

Trevor Foss d/b/a Trevor Foss Roofing,
third party defendant,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from the district court's final order denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial, appellants argue that (1) there is no evidence in the record to support the jury's award; (2) the district court erred by excluding evidence of respondents' construction practices and similar defects found in other homes built by respondents; (3) the district court erred in instructing the jury; and (4) the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Colson Custom Homes on the matter of successor liability. On notice of review, respondent Colson Construction alleges error in the district court's failure to reduce appellants' award by the percentage of negligence attributed to appellants by the jury. Also on notice of review, respondent Trevor Foss claims that the district court erred by denying him costs and disbursements against appellants. We reverse and remand to the district court in regard to Foss's claim for costs and disbursements. In all other respects, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0173

Malisa M. Brunotte,
Relator,

vs.

City of St. Paul Office Safety & Inspections,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relator challenges the designation of her dogs as "dangerous animals" under the St. Paul Legislative Code, arguing that (1) she was deprived of her due process rights, (2) the hearing officer's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious, and (3) the definition of "dangerous animal" in the St. Paul Legislative Code is preempted by state law. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0510

American Employers Insurance Company, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Robinson Outdoors, Inc., f/k/a Robinson Laboratories, Inc.,
Appellant.


SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges decisions of an arbitration panel as having been beyond the panel's authority and the district court's confirmation of the award in arbitration. Because the arbitration panel properly exercised the authority conferred by the parties and because the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award, we affirm.

= = ==

A08-0690

Gage Cates, a minor, by his mother and natural guardian, Jackie Winter,
Appellant,

vs.

North Star Mutual Insurance Company,
Respondent.

LARKIN, Judge
In this appeal from an award of summary judgment in favor of respondent, appellant claims that the district court erred by concluding that the insured's adult child was not a resident of the insured's household, and therefore not an insured under the policy issued by respondent. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact and because the district court properly applied the law, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0726

In re the Marriage of: Heather Dawn Woods,
n/k/a Heather Dawn Andrews, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Christian Michael Woods,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
On appeal in this child-support-modification dispute, appellant-mother argues that the district court erred by (1) modifying respondent-father's support obligation when his motion was served within the moratorium period of Minn. Stat. 518A.39, subd. 2(j) (Supp. 2007); (2) modifying the parties' stipulated health-insurance provision without adequate findings of fact; and (3) declining to award mother conduct-based attorney fees. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-1432

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. L. and E. L., Parents.


STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellants challenge termination of their parental rights to three children, arguing that because the district court failed to make a finding that they have the ability to comply with the duties imposed on them by the parent and child relationship, the court erred in finding that their failure to comply with those duties is a legal basis for terminating parental rights. Appellants also argue that the district court erred in finding them to be palpably unfit because the district court's findings of fact indicated that they do not lack the ability to be parents but only that they have engaged in poor decision-making that results from ongoing mental-health issues. 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.