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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Jeremy J. Keith,
Relator,
vs.
North Homes, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Jeremy J. Keith brings a certiorari appeal from an unemployment
law judge's (ULJ) determination that he quit without good cause.
Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's decision, and the ULJ
did not err in determining that relator did not have good cause to quit,
we affirm.

A05-2347
In re the Marriage of:
Judy Marie Creen, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Michael Thomas Creen,
Appellant.
WILLIS, Judge
In this marital-dissolution proceeding, pro se appellant husband
argues that the district court (1) lacked jurisdiction over the
proceeding; (2) abused its discretion when it denied husband's requests
for an order compelling discovery by respondent wife; and (3) abused its
discretion when it divided the parties' property because it considered
husband's criminal record in the process and inequitably distributed the
marital property. Because we conclude that the district court did not
lack jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

A06-103
Kristin Elizabeth Fischer, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Scott Bruce Cottington,
Respondent.
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant-wife challenges the district court's order terminating
spousal maintenance, denying modification of child support, awarding
respondent-husband reimbursement of medical and educational expenses,
quashing subpoenas, denying an evidentiary hearing, and awarding
respondent conduct-based attorney fees. Because the district court
correctly applied the law and properly exercised its discretion, we
affirm on all issues.

A06-329
Marjorie Ann Roggeman, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Ben Edward Roggeman, Jr.,
Appellant.
WRIGHT, Judge
On appeal from the district court's denial of appellant-husband's
motion to modify or terminate respondent-wife's spousal maintenance,
husband argues that the district court abused its discretion when it
found that the parties' changed circumstances do not necessitate
modification or termination of husband's maintenance obligation. We
remand.

A06-1053
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ben Braylock
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Ben Braylock challenges his indeterminate commitment as
a sexually dangerous person (SDP), arguing that (a) the evidence was
insufficient to meet the statutory requirements for commitment as an
SDP; (b) the SDP statute is unconstitutional because it is void for
vagueness; and (c) he presented sufficient evidence of an available
less-restrictive alternative to indeterminate commitment. Because we
observe no error in the trial court's determinations on the statutory
elements or on the constitutionality of the statute, we affirm.

A05-1947
In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination for R. L. S.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the administrative law
judge's order affirming the End of Confinement Review Committee's
classification of him as a risk level III offender, arguing (1) the End
of Confinement Review Committee exceeded its authority under the statute
by assigning him a risk level III when his Sex Offender Screening Tool
score would lead to a presumptive risk level II; and (2) the evidence
does not support the determination that relator should be assigned a
risk level III. 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.