 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Holker, A06-896,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney's misconduct warranted an indefinite suspension where the record showed that he, inter alia, violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 by filing a client's estate and income taxes late, Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d) by failing to return the client's entire file to the client's new lawyer, and committed other violations.
|
|||||
| Perry v. State, A06-1562,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first-degree premeditated murder case, denial of defendant's second petition for postconviction relief was proper because to the extent that he argued that Minn. Stat. § 609.11 should have been charged as an independent crime, his argument was Knaffla-barred in that he knew or should have known about this claim prior to his direct appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Fields, A04-2474,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Fallin did not create sufficiently clear requirements for admissibility of Minn. R. Evid. 608(b) evidence and because the evidence of defendant's prior theft from his employer was probative of defendant's untruthfulness and was likely admissible, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct with the limited inquiry into the theft.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of E.S.C., A06-707,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, juvenile, bit arresting police officer, and appellant spat at probation officer. Appeal of order for HIV testing was not moot, and district court had no authority to order HIV testing, as part of delinquency disposition, because Minn. Stat. § 611A.19 was inapplicable. District court also lacked authority from any other source.
|
|||||
| Overvig v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, A06-1043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Driver, who was apparently intoxicated, was asleep in car with engine running. Commissioner of Public Safety revoked driver's privileges; district court rescinded the revocation. Decision to rescind was clearly erroneous because, under facts presented, officer did not seize driver, pursuant to Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, merely by opening car door.
|
|||||
| SooHoo v. Johnson (In re SooHoo), A05-537,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly found that Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 was constitutional as applied because visitation was granted to third party who had lived with children for over two years and had parent-child relationship with them; visitation was in children's best interests and did not interfere with custodial parent's relationship with them.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of D.W., A06-2069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, a juvenile, and two other juveniles allegedly assaulted a victim. Minn. Stat. § 260B.125, subd. 3 was not unconstitutional because the adult-certification statute was not affected under Blakely. Adult certification procedure was not a criminal prosecution.
|
|||||
| Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. RAM Mut. Ins. Co., A06-847,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly granted an insurer summary judgment on an insured's complaint seeking costs for defending a complaint related to the operation of a pig farm as the alleged harm was excluded by the policy's pollution exclusion and was not covered by the policy's incidental-liability provisions. Thus, the insurer had no duty to defend.
|
|||||
| In re City of Annandale, A04-2033,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals erred when it reversed an agency's decision to issue a discharge permit for a proposed wastewater treatment plant; the agency's interpretation of 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) to allow offsets from another source in determining whether a new source would contribute to violation of water quality standards, was reasonable.
|
|||||
| Powers v. State, A06-1941,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder and assault case, denial of defendant's motion for correction of sentence under Minn. Stat. § 590.04 was proper as an argument based on Apprendi was raised in a postconviction petition, which was denied, and to the extent that the sentencing claim was different based on Blakely, it was Knaffla-barred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
