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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A08-1693

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joshua Joseph Cox

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Joshua Joseph Cox challenges his commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) under Minn. Stat. 253B.185 (2006), arguing that the statute is unconstitutional, that his commitment violated his right to a jury trial, and that the district court erred in concluding that he had engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct, in rejecting his proposed less-restrictive alternative, and in committing appellant despite testimony about changes in his condition. Because the supreme court has established that Minn. Stat. 253B.185 is constitutional and that there is no right to a jury trial in commitment cases and because we see no error on the part of the district court, we affirm.
= = = =
A08-0729

Jane Doe 43C, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Diocese of New Ulm, et al.,
Respondents.

LARKIN, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in respondents' favor. Appellants claim that the district court erred by determining that appellants' claims were time-barred under the delayed-discovery statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. 541.073 (2004), and by failing to apply the fraud statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. 541.05, subd. 1(6) (2004), to appellants' intentional-misrepresentation claim. Because we conclude that the district court applied the incorrect statute of limitations to appellants' intentional-misrepresentation claim, we reverse summary judgment on that claim and remand for a determination of whether the claim is time-barred under the fraud statute of limitations. But because appellants' nonfraud claims are untimely under the delayed-discovery statute of limitations, we affirm summary judgment on those claims.
= = = =
A08-0714

Steven Donald Hubbard, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license, appellant argues that Minn. Stat. 634.15 (Supp. 2007), which provides that a report of the facts and results of a laboratory analysis that is prepared and attested by the person performing the analysis in a laboratory operated by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is admissible in evidence in an implied-consent hearing, violates the Confrontation Clause and the separation-of-powers doctrine. We affirm.
= = = =
A08-0673

Stanford Taylor Edward McClure, Jr.,
Plaintiff,

Jesse Gant, III,
Appellant,

vs.

H. Le Phan, individually and in her capacity
as an employee/agent of Felhaber, Larson,
Fenlon & Vogt Law Firm, et al.,
Respondents.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant attorney, pro se, challenges the district court's grant of respondents' motion for sanctions against him and the denial of his own motion for sanctions. Because we conclude that the district court properly exercised its discretion, we affirm the district court's grant of respondents' motion and denial of appellant's motion.
= = = =
A08-0603

Jason A. Bartleman,
Relator,

vs.

TCF National Bank Minnesota,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) determination that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his employment for a reason other than a good reason caused by his employer. We affirm.
= = = =
A08-0581

Veit USA, Inc., et al.,
Relators,

vs.

Sherburne County, Minnesota, et al.,
Respondents.

STAUBER, Judge
In this certiorari appeal from respondent-county's denial of relator's application for a conditional use permit (CUP) allowing expansion of an aggregate mine, relator argues that (1) the county's discretion was limited by criteria in the relevant CUP ordinance as well as other caselaw-based considerations and (2) the county board's findings were arbitrary and capricious. Because the decision was arbitrary and capricious, the findings were legally insufficient, and the county could have addressed its concerns by implementing conditions to the CUP, we reverse and remand.
= = = =
A08-0372

Nicole Fyksen,
Relator,

vs.

Dakota County Community Development Agency,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator Nicole Fyksen seeks review of the termination of her Section 8 housing-assistance benefits by respondent Dakota County Community Development Agency (DCCDA), arguing that (1) the evidence does not support the decision to terminate based on misrepresentation, (2) DCCDA failed to consider mitigating circumstances, and (3) the hearing officer failed to comply with applicable law in making her decision. Because we conclude that the evidence does not support the termination decision, we reverse.
= = = =
A07-2386

James Mark Vogel,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Vicky Lynn Carrier,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of his motion for legal custody and parenting time of the parties' child, appellant-father argues that the dismissal should be remanded with instructions for a hearing. 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.