 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Estate of Torgersen, A05-1429,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former personal representative failed to prove undue influence under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-407 where the decedent's attorney testified that he never sensed any undue influence being exerted over decedent by her daughter or her son-in-law, as did the witnesses to the decedent's will.
|
|||||
| Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, A05-1523,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In law firm's suit against legal assistant, trial court properly denied motion to dismiss claim arising out of loan because this was a claim to which judicial immunity did not apply; judicial immunity applied to statements in affidavit filed in judicial proceeding with respect to claims of invasion of privacy, conspiracy, and breach of confidences.
|
|||||
| State v. Amundson, A04-2072,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of first-degree and fifth-degree controlled substance crimes; however, a no-knock warrant that was executed in the middle of the night violated Fourth Amendment and Minn. Const. art. I, § 10 because information used to support warrant was illegally obtained.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, A05-857,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dog sniff of defendant's apartment door was proper, Fourth Amendment, where there was no intrusion into the interior of defendant's apartment; rather, his illegal activity inside manifested itself through an odor that had escaped into a common area.
|
|||||
| State v. Hanke, A05-261,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1). Defendant was entitled to a new trial because bailiff made comments to jurors about county's drug problems, State failed to overcome presumption of prejudice, and it failed to satisfy burden of showing that contact was harmless.
|
|||||
| BCBSM, Inc. v. Minn. Comprehensive Health Ass'n, A05-942,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an insurer's action seeking a reduction of its assessment, as stop-loss insurance for employee health-care expenses was within the statutory definition of accident-and-health insurance, stop-loss premiums were included in the calculation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association's annual assessments under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5.
|
|||||
| In re Letourneau, A05-755,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where it was unclear whether an attorney knew that the statute of limitations had expired on a personal injury matter when he told a client that he would take fees for an unrelated matter out of her recovery, the requisite burden of proof had not been met to establish a violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c).
|
|||||
| State v. Kebaso, A04-1239,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court did not err in refusing to consider the potential immigration consequences to defendant when deciding which sentence to vacate under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 because immigration consequences were not a proper consideration in the decision as to which of multiple sentences to vacate or which of multiple offenses to sentence on under § 609.035.
|
|||||
| State v. Schmidt, A05-218,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minnesota's interest in preserving the Friedman right was not sufficient to prohibit the use of defendant's prior South Dakota convictions to enhance his DWI offenses under Minn. Stat. § 169A.24 even though the South Dakota convictions were based on uncounseled test decisions.
|
|||||
| Theobald v. County of Lake, A05-1657,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A tax court's decision to adopt a county assessor's valuation of taxpayer's property was not clearly erroneous where it was undisputed that the county auditor had appropriately listed the property as 11 separate taxable parcels. The taxpayer had not petitioned for combination of the parcels pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 272.46, subd. 2 (2004).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
