 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Welfare of S.M.E., A06-330,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's notice of appeal from juvenile adjudication was deemed untimely. Supreme court decided that appeal should be granted because interests of justice required that petitioner be allowed to appeal when evidentiary hearing was held after petitioner sought reconsideration of juvenile court's original adjudication.
|
|||||
| State v. Martinez, A05-696,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, the court properly admitted testimony of defendant's accomplice from another trial as substantive evidence, Minn. R. Evid. 803, because the witness admitted giving the testimony, he ultimately testified at defendant's trial, and there was a significant amount of evidence introduced at trial pointing towards defendant's guilt.
|
|||||
| State v. McLaughlin, A05-2327,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's murder convictions were proper pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 611.026 because it would not have served the interests of justice for the supreme court to consider striking the M'Naghten rule on defendant's record. The validity of defendant's claim depended entirely on highly technical facts that were never raised before the district court.
|
|||||
| State v. Pendleton, A05-1758,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's due process rights were not violated by a peremptory strike of a prospective juror because the juror was the only juror to express negative feelings about plea bargains, and the juror never stated that she thought her encounter with the police was due to race, but rather because she was dressed in black and her sons wore black berets.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
