 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Goldman v. Greenwood, A06-1110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child custody dispute between child's mother, who was child's sole custodian, and child's father, Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3, not Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d), governed mother's request to remove child to New York City. Mother's affidavits established prima facie proof on questions of child's preference and interests in relocating.
|
|||||
| Javinsky v. Comm'r of Admin., A06-109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a dispute over subcontractor selection, a district court's decision that an agency acted reasonable in withdrawing authority from another department was not reviewed because an appeal should have been filed when that portion of the case was decided, pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 and Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Holiday Rec. Indus., A06-421,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Challenge to the district court's venue decision was not properly before the appellate court because appellants did not file a petition for mandamus when the district court denied their request for change of venue, but rather waited until the conclusion of the trial to challenge the decision.
|
|||||
| Erickson v. State, A06-1113,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sixteen years after appealing his conviction for first-degree murder, petitioner sought post-conviction relief. Trial court properly denied petition because petitioner failed to meet burden under Minn. Stat. § 590.04. Claims, such as alleged denial of fair trial and alleged misconduct, were barred because they were known at time of direct appeal.
|
|||||
| Schneider v. State, A06-625,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief was denied without an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1, where an inmate did not show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment based on the failure to raise a challenge to the testing of blood evidence; moreover, the outcome of the trial would not have been different.
|
|||||
| State v. Haynes, A05-2444,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were proper as, inter alia, the trial court properly, under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 19(2)(1) and case law, conducted the jury to the courtroom when a playback of a tape-recorded statement was sought, and it properly found no prejudice to defendant, especially as a 911 tape, also being replayed, supported his version.
|
|||||
| Black v. State, A06-166, A06-311,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of postconviction relief was affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion in finding that the petitioner's request to withdraw his plea was untimely or in using the death threats as an aggravating factor in sentencing the petitioner to an upward durational departure for first degree witness tampering.
|
|||||
| State v. Perry, A05-2459,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of misdemeanor child endangerment under Minn. Stat. § 609.378, subd. 1(b)(2) as it showed that she knowingly permitted her grandchildren, whom she was caring for at the time, and who were well under the age of 18, to remain in her home while her daughter sold drugs to a confidential police informant.
|
|||||
| State v. Werner, A06-1378,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was lawfully stopped and arrested on an outstanding felony warrant and subsequently asked whether he had been drinking, the trial court erred in determining that defendant was in custody and that he was interrogated for purposes of Miranda as the officer's question was an appropriate on-site general question under the circumstances.
|
|||||
| McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, A06-486,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to a law firm on banks' claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract involving loans because the banks did not have to be the intended beneficiary of legal work done for the creditor who sold the loans to the banks and there was a genuine dispute regarding the scope of the firm's representation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
