 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. DSR Sales, Inc., A06-1402,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of a credit to respondent employer was reversed and remanded because when an employer was not notified of settlement negotiations in a third-party action, any settlement that resulted in a release of subrogated claims was void as to the employer and the employer shared in the settlement in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 6.
|
|||||
| Bendorf v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, A05-1484,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Driver's right to procedural due process was not violated merely because the hearing on his petition for judicial review was held more than 60 days after he filed his petition, as the driver availed himself of relief by obtaining a stay that allowed him to maintain his driving privileges throughout the process of judicial review.
|
|||||
| Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc., A04-2338,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When former employee's first action against an employer involved a breach of employment contract, and the employee's breach of shareholder agreement and for a shares buyout at fair value claims arose after the first action was filed, the employee was not required to add the claims to the first action and the claims were not barred by res judicata.
|
|||||
| State v. Verdon, A06-335,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court had the authority to correct clerical errors under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03 and court staff was responsible for entering the Minnesota Offense Code (MOC) in the criminal judgment and warrant of commitment, the trial court erred in determining that it did not have jurisdiction to order such a correction of defendant's MOC.
|
|||||
| State v. Warsame, A05-488,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Palubicki, A06-401,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In first-degree premeditated murder case, children of murder victim were victims themselves under restitution statute. It was a direct result of defendant's crime that the children attended the proceedings and suffered lost wages. Thus, trial court properly ordered defendant to pay restitution for their expenses, Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Hager, A05-2410,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict was impaired, Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, by an erroneous aiding-an-offender instruction because it was not clear which predicate offense the jury relied on, and there was no assurance that the jury reached a unanimous decision on the predicate offense by the perpetrator and the aiding conduct by defendant.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., A06-759,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where respondent driver, who owned and was operating a vehicle that was insured by his employer, was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver, Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(7) (2006), did not bar the driver from recovering excess uninsured-motorist benefits from an insurer that provided coverage on a different family vehicle.
|
|||||
| Watab Twp. Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Bd. of Comm'rs, A06-378, A06-1069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County properly found that environmental assessment worksheet was not required under Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(c), prior to plat approval of developer's project because nonprofit organization did not present material evidence showing significant environmental effects on traffic, spot zoning, wastewater discharge, or depletion of water supply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
