 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Instant Testing Co. v. Cmty. Sec. Bank, A05-1505,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the claims for additional relocation benefits was affirmed because the owner became ineligible to invoke a determination by the district court under Minn. Stat. § 117.232, subd. 2, when the owner did not reject the buyer's offer covering relocation benefits at any time material.
|
|||||
| Lake Superior Ctr. Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., A05-800, A05-1533,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in extending time limits imposed by Minn. Stat. § 544.42 for service of appellants' expert-review affidavit, even after the time limits expired, in appellants' malpractice action against an architectural firm because there was evidence to support the trial court's finding of excusable neglect under to Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.02.
|
|||||
| Mercer v. Andersen, A05-1103,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Malpractice claims were properly dismissed as time barred where tolling provision of Minn. Stat. § 541.13 did not apply; patient made no effort to locate or serve out-of-state doctor. Partial dismissal of claims against a nurse and others was mandatory where claims had not been reviewed by an expert, as required under Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (2004).
|
|||||
| Miller v. State, A05-952,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentence following convictions for first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, trial court erred in imposing two consecutive 10-year periods of condition release because consecutive conditional release terms, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a) could not be imposed for convictions resulting from a single trial.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Henderson v. Fabian, A06-439,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the imposition of an additional 45 days on an inmate's sentence after he refused to participate in a mandated, in-prison sex-offender treatment program as the inmate's Fifth Amendment privilege not to discuss the crime expired once the inmate's conviction was affirmed on appeal.
|
|||||
| Pierson v. State, A05-2030,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an inmate's second petition was not an abuse of discretion in violation of Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 because the claims in the second petition were known to the inmate when he filed the first petition.
|
|||||
| State v. Laine, A03-1551,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for first-degree domestic abuse murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.185, because defendant was alone with the victim at the time she was injured, he did not dispute that the victim was a "family or household member," and the victim died from injuries that could have been inflicted by a person's fist or forearm.
|
|||||
| State v. Osborne, C1-03-253,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upward departure of defendant's sentence relying on facts that were not based on jury verdicts was violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely. Defendant did not forfeit consideration of Blakely claim by failing to raise it in district court because Blakely had not been decided at that time, and Blakely applied retroactively.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
