 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dreyling v. Comm'r of Revenue, A05-970,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tax dispute, finding that taxpayer was a resident of Minnesota was proper; he was a retired physician who practiced medicine in Alaska part time. Taxpayer did meet his burden under Minn. Stat. § 289A.60, subd. 6 of showing that a fraud penalty was inappropriate because only false statement asserted that he was not a Minnesota resident.
|
|||||
| Kmart Corp. v. County of Clay, A05-590, A05-591,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of real property tax petitions was affirmed because proof of service as required by Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(c) on the county assessor and the county attorney was not completed in the manner authorized in Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(a), and facsimile service was not authorized for service of initiating documents.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. BASF Corp., C3-02-857,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: NJCFA claim by farmers against company for deceptively marketing herbicides preventing farmers from learning that lower-priced herbicide was equivalent of higher-priced product was not preempted by FIFRA because the farmers' claims were based on nonlabel conduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Manthey, A04-2468,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to be present at all stages of the proceeding was not violated, Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, where the court reconvened to answer a jury question, the State's attorneys averred that defendant was present in the courtroom during the jury communications, and defendant did not submit evidence that she was not present.
|
|||||
| State v. Scacchetti, A03-301,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's confrontation rights, Sixth Amendment, were not violated by the admission of a nurse's testimony regarding what the child victim told her about defendant's abuse because the child was a victim, not a mere observer, and the child made the statements in response to questions asked during a medical assessment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
