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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Ashley D. Rossman,
Relator,

vs.

City of St. Paul Office of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Ashley Rossman challenges by writ of certiorari the
determination by the St. Paul Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection (LIEP) that her dog, Brandy Wine, is a
potentially dangerous animal. Relator argues that (1) there is
insufficient evidence that Brandy Wine bit her neighbor without
provocation; and (2) the LIEP hearing was unfair because the hearing
officer demonstrated personal bias against large dogs. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2475


In re the Marriage of:
Karen J. Jacobson,
petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Robert Curtis Jacobson,
Appellant.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Robert Curtis Jacobson challenges the district
court's order refusing to award him a nonmarital interest in the
homestead property that appellant owned jointly with respondent Karen J.
Jacobson. Appellant also asserts that the district court abused its
discretion by ordering him to make a cash property-equalization payment
before the emancipation of the parties' youngest child.
Because appellant has not offered sufficient credible
evidence to overcome the presumption that property acquired during the
marriage is marital, or to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the
timing of the equalization payment, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-553

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.L.C. and A.C., Jr.,
Parents

PETERSON, Judge
Appellant-parents appeal district court orders terminating
their parental rights, denying a motion to transfer custody to a
relative, and denying a motion for a new trial, arguing that the
district court (1) failed to independently review the evidence and
improperly adopted the county's proposed findings, which are not
supported by the record; (2) improperly refused to transfer legal
custody of the child where the county failed to adequately pursue a
relative placement; (3) improperly terminated parental rights based
solely on the parents' incarceration; (4) erred in determining that the
evidence supported termination of parental rights and that termination
is in the child's best interests; and (5) denied mother due process by
(a) accepting an invalid waiver of her right to testify; and (b) denying
her a new trial. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-436
A06-654

In the Matter of the
Welfare of the Child of:
J.D.C. and J.L.W., Parents.

HUDSON, Judge
In this consolidated appeal from the district court's termination
of parental rights, appellant-mother argues that (1) the district
court's finding that she is palpably unfit to parent is clearly
erroneous; (2) the district court's finding that Isanti County made
reasonable efforts at reunification is clearly erroneous; (3) the
district court erred by concluding that Isanti County's failure to
actively pursue relative placement was not fatal to the petition to
terminate parental rights; and (4) the district court's conclusion that
termination was in the best interests of the child is erroneous.
Appellant-father argues that (1) the district court's finding that
Isanti County provided reasonable efforts at reunification is erroneous;
(2) the district court failed to make sufficient findings of fact
regarding the best interests of the child; (3) Isanti County failed to
pursue a relative placement for the child; and (4) Isanti County did not
satisfy the requirements of the Indian Family Preservation Act and the
Indian Child Welfare Act. We affirm.

= = = =

A05-2313

Elva E. Baumgartner,
Relator,

vs.

Independent School District #115,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge

Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge that
relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she
quit without good reason caused by the employer. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-10


In re the Marriage of:

Robyn Bartz Woolley, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Robert James Woolley,
Appellant.

DIETZEN, Judge

In this dissolution proceeding, appellant husband challenges
the district court order of default and resulting judgment and decree,
arguing that the district court erred (1) in failing to hear his motion
for a temporary order regarding attorney fees, (2) by finding him in
default, and (3) by not equitably dividing the property. Because the
district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its
discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-585

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of
J.P. and M.G., Parents

ROSS, Judge
M.G., the father of 11-year-old T.P., appeals from the district
court's order permanently transferring the physical and legal custody of
T.P. to J.P., the child's mother, for M.G.'s failure to comply with his
case plan after T.P. was adjudicated a child in need of protection or
services (CHIPS). M.G. argues that the evidence does not support the
district court's factual findings and that those findings do not satisfy
the statutory requirements authorizing the transfer of legal custody.
Because the district court erred by focusing on M.G.'s denial of the
allegation that gave rise to the CHIPS petition as clear and convincing
evidence that he failed to substantially comply with his case plan and
failed to use the services offered to correct the condition that led to
T.P.'s out-of-home placement, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.

= = = =

A05-2434


Rodney Wayne Kesanen,
Respondent,

vs.

D & H Construction
of Eveleth, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,

East Range Builders
& Supply, Inc., et al.,
Appellants.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Appellants, East Range Builders and Supply, Inc., and its
president, David Strope, dispute the factual bases for the jury's
determination that they are liable for defamation and tortious
interference with contract. Because the record supports the jury's
findings, we affirm. We also find no merit in the contentions that the
statements were non-actionable opinions, that the individual appellant
was not personally liable because he was speaking only as a corporate
officer, or that appellants should enjoy absolute immunity based on
national security grounds.

= = = =

A06-210


In re the Marriage of:
Susan M. Bocklund, n/k/a Susan M. Balster, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Duane R. Bocklund,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's refusal to award
her permanent spousal maintenance and attorney fees. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make either
award, 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.