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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Bernie Jay Nelson, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Kristi Sue Nelson,
Appellant.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order modifying custody, appellant-mother
argues that the district court's findings of fact are not supported by
the evidence and that the findings of fact do not support the decision
to modify custody. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2528

M.B.E., Inc., et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, et al.,
Respondents,

Minnesota Construction Conference of Teamsters, intervenor,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a summary judgment dismissing appellants'
complaint in a declaratory-judgment action challenging the validity of
two statutes and the administrative rules adopted to implement and
enforce the statutes, appellants argue that the district court erred in
ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the
declaratory-judgment action. Because the district court did not have
original jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative
rule in a pre-enforcement declaratory-judgment action and appellants
failed to show that the statutes have been, or are about to be, applied
to their disadvantage, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-858


In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:
J. L. M. and R. D. J., Sr., Parents.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from the district court's termination of his parental
rights, appellant R.D.J., Sr., challenges the district court's
conclusions that (1) termination is justified by the statutory factors
of (a) neglect of or refusal to comply with parental duties, (b)
appellant's palpable unfitness to be a parent, (c) reasonable efforts
were unsuccessful to correct conditions requiring the foster-home
placement and (d), the child is neglected and in foster care; and
contends that (2) it is not in the child's best interests to have his
parental rights terminated; and (3) the district court should have
transferred legal and physical custody of his son to the sister of his
fiancee. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2338

In re the Matter of: Gregory Beauchamp Washington, II, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Valencia V. Anderson,
Respondent.

MINGE, Judge

Appellant Gregory Washington challenges the district court's
decision (1) increasing his child support obligation; (2) addressing
retroactive modification of support; (3) applying the increase
retroactively; (4) simultaneously creating a child support arrearage and
entering judgment for the arrearage; (5) awarding respondent attorney
fees; and (6) imposing a lien on appellant's properties to secure future
child support payments. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = =

A06-114

Ricardo Regis,
Relator,

vs.

J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's determination that
relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he
was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-956


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Jeffrey Kim Kirckof.


DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant Kirckof challenges the district court's judgment
committing him as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic
personality, arguing that (1) the determinations were not supported by
clear and convincing evidence; (2) the district court abused its
discretion by incorporating proposed findings and conclusions prepared
by respondent; and (3) his indeterminate commitment violated principles
of double jeopardy, ex post facto law, and equal protection. Because
the district court decision was supported by clear and convincing
evidence, and the court properly applied the law and did not abuse its
discretion, 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 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.