 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Civ. Commitment of Olson, A07-219,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly ordered the indeterminate commitment of a patient to a security hospital under Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 because it found that he had an organic brain disorder, he was unlikely to maintain sobriety, had not received proper assistance with managing medications, and had not actively participated in therapy sessions that would help him.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare Of: P. Q. C., A06-829,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In juvenile proceeding, order for out-of-home, residential treatment was not supported by sufficient findings, required by Minn. Stat. § 260B.198; Minn. R. Juv. P. 15.05, because findings did not show why disposition was in juvenile's best interests, why his current placement was unsuitable, and why particular placement was suitable and beneficial.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of H.V., A06-1214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court declined the juvenile's invitation to reexamine its prior holding that the mandatory registration requirement in Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1)(iii), as applied to juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent for listed offenses without jury trials, did not violate due-process rights.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of J.W.L., A06-863,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A warrantless seizure was not justified under the plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment because taking photographs of graffiti in defendant's home was not related to a 911 emergency, the officer who took the pictures testified that when he took them, no crime had been committed, and the officer took the pictures for information only.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of the Children of M.A.W., A06-2159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Good cause existed to support the voluntary termination of a mother's parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301 because she swore in her affidavit that her consent to termination was for good cause and in the best interests of her children, and the court found that good cause existed due to the mother's inability to care for her children.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., A06-1478,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute over insurer's liability under policy for fire loss, policy contained an appraisal clause, mandated by Minn. Stat. § 65A.01, subd. 3, and policy also contained a two-year limitations period. Trial court did not err in dismissing insured's claim because appraisal was not agreement to arbitrate, and two-year limitation barred court action.
|
|||||
| Kronebusch v. Wabasha County Bd. of Adjustment, A06-1323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the county board of adjustment was affirmed because the landowners had offered no information indicating that an appeal to the county board of adjustment was futile or that the county board of adjustment itself would have denied the variance application.
|
|||||
| Laniado v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, A06-1077,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety was not estopped from canceling and denying the driver's license as the driver signed a last-drink statement acknowledging the total-abstinence restriction, and Minn. Stat. 171.07, subd. 1(a) did not require the restriction to be signified on the license for it to be valid.
|
|||||
| LeMaster Constr., Inc. v. Mahoney, A06-1202, A06-1208,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a mechanics' lien action, the district court did not err in its determination that there was no contract between the parties, as the essential terms of the contract were never fully settled; although the parties had some agreement on the general nature and scope of the work, the specific terms were never committed to writing.
|
|||||
| McGlothlin v. Steinmetz, A06-1016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erroneously determined that probable cause as to liability was lacking, because the evidence established probable grounds that a reasonable fact-finder might determine that the creditor was not a resident of the debtors' home and that garnishee was liable to the creditor under the insurance policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
