 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Falls v. Coca Cola Enters., A06-994,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Temporary total disability benefits were improperly terminated under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 1(i), for employee's refusal of a suitable work offer because such disqualification did not apply to situations in which offer predated period of total disability and employee's conduct did not constitute a constructive refusal of suitable employment.
|
|||||
| State v. Lemieux, A05-554,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When officers saw signs of a forced entry at a residence, the warrantless search of the residence was valid under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, and defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the residence was properly denied in his murder trial.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, A05-677,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant should have been granted an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1, for his postconviction motion seeking a new trial because the existence of newly-discovered witnesses emphasized the need for a credibility determination and defendant raised important issues of material fact regarding scientific methods used by police.
|
|||||
| Fine v. Bernstein, A05-2393,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings properly found that a candidate's statements in a flyer violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 of the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act because they were assertions of fact about an incumbent and the board records contradicted the statements in the flyer; the $ 800 penalty was valid.
|
|||||
| State v. Mauer, A05-460,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of child pornography under Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) based on his purchase of compact discs was upheld because the statute required a sufficient level of scienter as to the age of the performers to satisfy First Amendment requirements and he was in some manner aware of the age of the performers.
|
|||||
| Croixdale, Inc. v. County of Washington, A06-153,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assisted living center was not entitled to property tax exemption under Minn. Stat. § 272.02 because the center did not meet its burden of establishing that its services were offered considerably below cost, the tax court could have reasonably concluded that the center produced a profit, and it did not show how it lessened a burden on government.
|
|||||
| State v. Jackson, A05-1882,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for first-degree murder while attempting to commit aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1; 609.245, subd. 1, as 1) he intended to aid in commission of robbery; 2) he was found within vicinity of murder weapon; and 3) murder was foreseeable as use or threat of force was planned.
|
|||||
| State v. Wright, A03-1197,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victims' statements to the police were testimonial, and therefore their admission violated defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause, because the police interviews occurred after the emergency had ended and were conducted in order to establish events potentially relevant to defendant's future prosecution.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
