 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Hassinger v. Seeley (In re J.J.S.), A04-2477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's ruling that Minn. Stat. § 257.75 and Minn. Stat. § 257.541 were not unconstitutional was affirmed because the statutes did not violate the father's equal protection rights as mothers and fathers were not similarly situated; thus, granting sole physical custody to the mother did not violate the father's equal protection rights.
|
|||||
| Posey v. Fossen, A05-691,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse discretion by determining that a company, a third-party defendant in a negligence action, had prevailed on the third-party complaint for purposes of an award of costs and disbursements under Minn. Stat. §§ 549.02, 549.04; facts supporting judgment included a finding that company was zero percent negligent.
|
|||||
| State v. C. P. H., A05-636,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting respondent's petition for expungement under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3, because the charges against respondent were continued for dismissal and subsequently dismissed without an admission or finding of guilt, thus the proceedings were resolved in favor of respondent as required by § 609A.02, subd. 3.
|
|||||
| In re De Rycke, A04-417,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disbarment of an attorney was the appropriate sanction for client neglect, misappropriation of client funds, trust account mismanagement, violating a court order, and noncooperation with the disciplinary investigation against him after the attorney was disciplined on three prior occasions for similar misconduct.
|
|||||
| Lundell v. Coop. Power Ass'n, A04-1045,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Electrical cooperative was properly granted title to and possession of tower site by the quick take procedure under Minn. Stat. § 117.042 because when its right to maintain possession of land under its lease with property owners was called into question, it determined that it needed to take immediate title to ensure continued supply of electricity.
|
|||||
| McDonough v. State, A05-500,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's third petition for postconviction relief was properly denied pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2004), where three of his seven claims were previously rejected by the court and where the remaining four were barred by the Knaffla rule because petitioner knew or should have known of all of them at the time of his direct appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
