 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Riley v. Jankowski, A05-1125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While administrative hearing process under Minn. Stat. § 211B.31 to .37 did not violate separation-of-powers doctrine or relators' First Amendment rights because Minn. Stat. § 211B.04(a) directly regulated content of pure speech in violation of First Amendment, ALJ panel could not impose civil penalties on relators for violating 211B.04(a).
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Ellefson, A04-615,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death suit arising out of a vehicular accident that followed the use of alcohol, under Minn. R. Evid. 801, district court did not err in excluding toxicologist's opinions, which other drivers and transportation company argued were party admissions, because decedent's trustee never adopted expert's opinions; statements were hearsay.
|
|||||
| State v. Barnes, A05-810,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's challenge to his first-degree domestic abuse murder conviction, because Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(6), the domestic abuse murder statute, and Minn. Stat. § 609.195(a), the third-degree depraved mind murder statute, did not punish identical conduct, their coexistence did not present an equal protection concern.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. McOskar Enters., A05-1546,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a fitness club member's negligence suit against the club for injuries she sustained during a workout, the trial court did not err in granting the club's motion for summary judgment because the member signed and agreed to a release of the club's liability for negligence, and the release did not contravene public policy.
|
|||||
| Borgen v. 418 Eglon Ave., A05-1138,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Forfeiture of a house and money totalling $19,530 based on Minn. Stat. § 609.5311 was not unconstitutionally excessive under U.S. Const. amend. VIII or Minn. Const. art. I, § 5 under the gross disproportionality or nexus test; the house was an instrumentality of crime since drugs and money were seized there during the execution of a search warrant.
|
|||||
| Harrison v. Harrison, A05-1038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child's action against his parents when he was injured in a car collision due to the parents' improper installation of the child's restraint system, summary judgment in the child's favor was proper as the exception from Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a) applied to actions under negligent-installation and product-liability theories.
|
|||||
| In re Disposition of Molly, A05-1130,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in designating an owner's dog a "dangerous dog" under Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2(2) as the City acted without authority to enforce the statute and the record did not support the conclusion that the owner's dog killed the neighbors' dog within the plain meaning of § 347.50, subd. 2(2).
|
|||||
| Prof'l Fiduciary, Inc. v. Silverman, A05-1322,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly denied to an attorney and an insurer because a personal representative had the authority to bring a legal malpractice case on behalf of an estate under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-703(c) (2004), there was no conflict of interest, and it was uncertain whether the proceeds would have been used to satisfy a contribution claim.
|
|||||
| Rasmussen v. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., A05-1418, A05-1419,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a condemnation action, a landlord did not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment when it exercised the power of eminent domain and terminated the leasehold. Due to a provision in the lease, two tenants were precluded from recovering a takings award following the condemnation.
|
|||||
| Rubey v. Vannett, A05-310,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the time for filing the husband's appeal began to run when the wife served the notice of filing of the order disposing of the husband's new trial/amended findings motion, the appellate court erred when it dismissed, as untimely, the husband's appeal of the underlying order for judgment and judgment decree.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
