THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
Minneapolis attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Minneapolis 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@injurylawstpaul.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of the Welfare of the
Children of: M.S., C.M., and D.C.,
Parents

LANSING, Judge
JES appeals from an order terminating her mother's parental
rights. She raises three grounds for appeal. First, JES argues that
the district court failed to give her preference adequate weight when
evaluating whether termination was in her best interests. Second, JES
argues that the district court retroactively applied the amended
long-term foster-care (LTFC) statute. Third, JES argues that the 2005
amendments to the LTFC statute violate separation-of-powers principles
by infringing on the district court's ability to act in the best
interests of a child. Because the findings establish that the district
court evaluated whether the termination is in JES's best interests and
applied the correct law, we affirm.

= = = =

A05-1082


In re:
Estate of Aural Alma Greenstreet,
Decedent

LANSING, Judge
Richard Greenstreet appeals the district court's decisions
denying his claims against the estate of his mother, Aural Greenstreet.
First, he appeals the district court's order granting a family allowance
but finding that the allowance has been fully satisfied by benefits
received following his mother's death. Second, he appeals the district
court's directed verdict dismissing his claims for compensation from the
estate for his alleged services to his mother. He also appeals the
district court's orders denying his posttrial motions following each
decision. Because the evidence supports the district court's
conclusions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Greenstreet's motions for amended findings or for a new trial on
either his family-allowance or compensation-for-services claims, we
affirm.

= = = =

A05-2323


Mark V. Scheid,
Relator,

vs.

McPhillips Trucking, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Mark V. Scheid challenges his disqualification from
unemployment benefits, arguing that he quit his job for good reason
caused by his employer, respondent McPhillips Trucking, Inc. Because
the evidence supports the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ),
who concluded that the heated confrontation between relator and his
employer was momentary and not the kind of situation that would cause an
average, reasonable employee to quit and become unemployed, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-506

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Todd Anthony Fernandes


WORKE, Judge
On appeal from an order for indeterminate commitment as a
sexually dangerous person, under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.02, subd. 18c
(2004), appellant argues that the commitment order must be reversed
because (1) the evidence is insufficient to support a
finding that he meets the criteria for commitment as a sexually
dangerous person; and (2) his commitment violates his double-jeopardy,
due-process, and equal-protection rights. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-191

In the Matter of the Eligibility of Adam Strege,
Claimant for Crime Victims Reparations

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the denial of crime-victim reparations for failing
to cooperate with law-enforcement authorities, relator argues that the
Crime Victims Reparations Board should not have denied his claim because
he has a mental disability that prevented him from cooperating fully
with law enforcement. Because the board's decision is supported by the
record, we affirm. Further, respondent's motion to strike that portion
of relator's brief that contains information outside the record is
granted.

= = = =

A06-364

In re the Marriage of:
Joyce Kathleen Grover, petitioner
Appellant,

vs.

David Allen Grover, Jr.,
Respondent.


This appeal arises from a custody dispute in a marriage
dissolution. The district court, after considering the best interests
of the parties' child, granted sole physical custody to
respondent-father David Grover. Appellant-mother Joyce Grover argues
that the record does not support several of the district court's
findings and that the district court's determination is based on
improper considerations and bias. Because the district court's findings
have record support and because we find no error or bias, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-76, A06-77

Brooks D. Fisher,
Respondent,

vs.

State of Minnesota, Department of Corrections, et al.,
Appellants,

Dr. Virginia Mandac, et al.,
Defendants.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Respondent Brooks Fisher was repeatedly assaulted while he was
incarcerated between 1998 and 2003. He brought claims for violations of
42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (2000), violations of the Minnesota Constitution, and
negligence against appellants State of Minnesota Department of
Corrections and various department employees. Arguing that they are
immune from such claims, appellants moved for summary judgment. Their
motion was denied. Because genuine issues of material fact remain
regarding whether appellants acted with malice and are therefore not
entitled to official immunity on the negligence claim arising out of the
May 26, 2002, assault, we affirm the denial of summary judgment on that
claim and remand. Because appellants do not argue that official
immunity applies to the negligence claim arising out of the October 22,
2003, assaults, we also affirm the denial of summary judgment on that
claim and remand. Because we conclude that appellants are immune from
respondent's section 1983 claims and his other negligence claims, we
reverse the denial of summary judgment on those claims.
 

 
 
 

  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 Lawyer 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.