 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Lewandowski, A06-537,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first-degree criminal sexual conduct case, because defendant was the victim's horseback-riding instructor, fed her and provided her with transportation when she stayed at his farm, and effectively acted as her guardian, defendant held a "position of authority" over the victim within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 10.
|
|||||
| State v. Mortensen, A06-590,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1(1) did not create any classifications on its face or by inference, defendant's equal protection rights were not violated when his civil license revocations were used to enhance his DWI conviction.
|
|||||
| State v. Rice County, A06-1041,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of suit filed under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 116B, was affirmed because none of the claims set forth legally sufficient allegations that the County caused pollution, impairment, or destruction of a natural resource.
|
|||||
| State v. Thompson, A06-1891,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of evidence was reversed and remanded because the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant violated Minneapolis, Minn., Code Ordinances § 466.230, when it was uncontested that defendant obstructed traffic by entering the intersection when he could not clear it.
|
|||||
| State v. Veal, A06-1161,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in determining that the stop was reasonable, because the officer stopped defendant's vehicle on the reasonable suspicion that defendant or his passenger were involved in or had knowledge of reported suspicious activity or were in need of assistance.
|
|||||
| State v. Welch, A06-1411,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 150-month sentence for second-degree attempted criminal sexual conduct was affirmed because defendant had an extensive history of assaulting women, and he attacked the victim in a public park while the victim was pushing her infant child in a stroller.
|
|||||
| Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, A06-882, A06-1417,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a postdissolution proceeding, a district court improperly held that a father was a nuisance litigant as it was unclear whether it had applied Minn. R. Gen. Prac. Dist. Ct. 9.01-9.07 or considered the substantive requirements in making its ruling. The orders denying the father's motion to modify custody and finding him in contempt were affirmed.
|
|||||
| United Prairie Bank v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., A06-722, A06-868,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a quiet title action, trial court mistakenly granted declaratory judgment to bank because record was not clear enough to support contention that parties conferred authority to decide matter on record, and farmers would be able to show existence of material issues.
|
|||||
| Wolter v. Dep't of Human Servs., A06-1139,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of human services had not erroneously interpreted Minn. Stat. § 252.27, subd. 2a(b), to provide a reduced fee only for custodial parents of children receiving state medical-assistance services; plain language of § 252.27 excluded noncustodial parents, and therefore, department had not erred in calculating the noncustodial father's fee.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
