 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Kouba, A04-2489,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an extension of defendant's probation was ordered after a hearing at which he was not offered counsel, evidence obtained solely as result of extension, and as result of warrant subsequently obtained based on evidence, had to be suppressed; his convictions for use of minor in sexual performance and of criminal sexual conduct were overturned.
|
|||||
| Kmart Corp. v. County of Becker, A05-1069,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The tax court's valuation of a taxpayer's store was reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole where the tax court was presented with expert opinions on the value of the property; the value set by the tax court was below the average of the two appraisals, in favor of the taxpayer; and its reasoning was explained in a 12-page memorandum.
|
|||||
| Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns, A05-442,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a retail store's challenge to the county assessor's valuations of the property the store leased, because the store did not disclose any tenant-paid real estate expenses, the tax court correctly determined that the store violated the 60-day rule of Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Bobadilla, A03-1891,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual abuse case, defendant's confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment were not violated by the hearsay admission of the child's statements because the child's statements in the assessment interview were not testimonial; neither the child nor the child-protection worker were acting in order to produce a statement for trial.
|
|||||
| Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl, P.L.L.P., A05-340,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 14, 2006, Decided , February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc., A04-2338,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 14, 2006, Decided , February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, A05-1793,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in enforcing a withdrawn plea agreement, which was still executory, following the victim's opposition to the agreement and in accepting defendant's guilty plea to a lesser degree of sexual assault over the prosecutor's objection; thus, district court's decision was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. First State Bank, A05-1328,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Repossession of debtors' vehicle was complete when wheels were lifted from ground, and any objections to repossession that debtors made after that point could not dispossess creditor of its right to possession; because towing company owner had no contact with debtors before wheels were lifted, repossession occurred without a breach of the peace.
|
|||||
| In re Rooney, A04-1959,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months as he misappropriated approximately $ 27,000 of his clients' funds in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15, 8.4(c).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
