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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A08-1308

Paul A. Poydras, Jr., petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred in sustaining the revocation of his driving privileges because the arresting police officer perjured himself while testifying at the implied consent hearing. Because the district court's credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous, we affirm.
= = = =
A08-0873

Stephen Anthony Gfrerer,
Respondent,

vs.

Kimberly Ann Lemcke,
Appellant,

The Morris Long Group, et al.,
Defendants.

MINGE, Judge
Appellant claims that the district court erred when it awarded judgment to respondent for work he performed on appellant's home and yard, arguing
(1) respondent's claim is barred by Minn. Stat. 513.075-.076 (2008); (2) the evidence did not support the judgment; and (3) the damage calculation was erroneous. Because the claim is not statutorily barred and there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment and damage award, we affirm.
= = = =
A08-0813

First Minnesota Bank, f/k/a First Minnesota Bank, N. A.,
Appellant,

vs.

Overby Development, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,

Great Woods Cabinetry, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

SHUMAKER, Judge
In this mortgage-foreclosure action, the mortgagee challenges the district court's determination that an overbid at the sheriff's sale by the mortgagee satisfied the judgment awarded the mortgagee and produced a surplus to which the mortgagor was entitled. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
= = = =
A08-0728

Mary Eischens, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Marriott International, Inc.,
a foreign corporation,
Respondent.

STAUBER, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment in a negligence action arising out of a slip-and-fall accident involving guests at an Egyptian hotel, appellants Mary and Richard Eischens contend that the district court erred by dismissing their claims against respondent Marriott International, Inc. (MII), whose subsidiary, Marriott Hotels International, B.V. (MHI), manages the hotel. Appellants acknowledge that MII does not own or manage the hotel, but claim that MII assumed a duty of care to hotel guests under the provisions of the hotel's operating and management agreement. Because the plain language of the contract in question only obligated MII to act as a guarantor or surety for performance of MHI's contractual duties, rather than to assume tort liability to hotel guests, we affirm.
= = = =
A08-0643

Autumn Michelle Karasek, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Jason James Karasek,
Appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge
Jason James Karasek and his former wife, Autumn Michelle Karasek, had a heated argument after she told him that she was pregnant. The district court issued an order for protection (OFP) against Jason Karasek based on a finding that he inflicted on her fear of physical harm. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
= = = =
A08-0293

Jerry Agnes,
Respondent,

vs.

Rick Steile, et al.,
Appellants.

RANDALL, Judge
Respondent Jerry Agnes brought an action against appellants Rick Steile and Jerrick Construction, Inc., seeking involuntary dissolution of Jerrick Construction and other relief. After a court trial, the district court dissolved the corporation, resolved numerous claims of the parties, and divided the assets equally. Appellants appealed the judgment; respondent filed a notice of review. Appellants and respondent challenge various aspects of the court's resolution of their claims and its division of assets. Respondent also contends the court made a clerical error. We find the district court's decisions within its discretion and its findings of fact supported by the evidence. Respondent may apply to the district court for correction of clerical errors, if any. We affirm.
= = = =
A08-0245

Howard McKinley, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Dale McKinley, et al.,
Respondents.

BJORKMAN, Judge
In this property-transfer dispute, appellant argues that (1) the district court applied the wrong standard of proof and (2) the record does not support the district court's decision even under the standard of proof it applied. Because we conclude that the district court applied the correct standard of proof and did not clearly err in finding that appellant failed to satisfy that standard, we affirm.
= = = =
A08-0184

Deeqa Hassan,
Relator,

vs.

Dakota County Community Development Agency,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a decision to terminate her Section 8 housing benefits, relator argues that (a) the record does not support the finding that she failed to cooperate with respondent community development agency; and (b) in making its decision, respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider relevant circumstances. We reverse.
= = = =
A08-0096

Minnesota Commercial Railway Company, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Rice Creek Watershed District,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
This appeal is from a judgment for respondent watershed district on claims arising from respondent's construction of a sedimentation basin upstream from appellants' railroad bridge, which appellants claim damaged their bridge. Appellants argue that the district court erred in (1) granting judgment for respondent on appellants' inverse-condemnation claim based on its finding that appellants failed to show that the basin caused damage to their bridge; (2) granting summary judgment for respondent on appellants' claim for unjust enrichment; and (3) dismissing appellants' tort claims based on statutory immunity. 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.