 |
|
 |
|
|
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 D.S.M., A05-638,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circumstances surrounding a juvenile's interrogation supported a conclusion that he reasonably would have believed that he was in custody at the time he made his admissions, and that he was improperly subjected to a custodial interrogation without receiving a Miranda warning.
|
|||||
| McConnell v. McConnell, A04-2387,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of temporary spousal maintenance was reversed and remanded because the husband presented sufficient evidence to support an award of permanent spousal maintenance, when the district court failed to credit the undisputed evidence documenting the husband's profound debilitating physical health problems.
|
|||||
| State v. Myers, A05-1604,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The failure to inform a driver that the refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication administered under Minn. Stat. § 169A.51 (2004) was a gross misdemeanor that might have resulted in harsher penalties than test failure did not result in a violation of due process because there was no active misleading or implied assurances.
|
|||||
| Council of Indep. Tobacco Mfrs. of Am. v. State, A03-2020,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Minn. Stat. § 297F.24 (2004) did not violate appellants' First Amendment rights, did not violate appellants' right to equal protection under the United States Constitution or uniformity under the Minnesota Constitution, and did not constitute a bill of attainder, decisions rejecting appellants' challenge to the statute were affirmed.
|
|||||
| In re Fagre-Stroetz, A05-718,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, with no right to apply for reinstatement for one year, because the attorney neglected and failed to effectively communicate with a client, practiced law while fee suspended, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of Child of T.T.B., A05-1615, A05-1631,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an IWCA case, 25 U.S.C.S. § 1911, because a petition to transfer jurisdiction to a tribe was filed shortly after the petition for transfer of legal custody, complied with scheduling orders, and occurred before trial, the petition was not filed at an advanced stage in the proceedings, and good cause did not exist to deny the transfer.
|
|||||
| State v. A.C.H., A05-1405,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expungement of executive-branch records was reversed because the resolution was not in favor of respondent and expungement of executive-branch records was not authorized, when respondent pled guilty and admitted to committing the crime.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
