 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| O'Byrne v. Lumber One, Avon, Inc., A06-1121,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract suit, district court's decision to grant remittitur on a contractor's award against a development company was in error because district court provided no explanation for its decision that the contractor was entitled to a 35 percent profit margin rather than a 56 percent profit margin.
|
|||||
| O'Connell v. Wahlstrom, A06-872,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the trial court properly found that vendors under a commercial real estate purchase agreement for a mobile park breached certain warranties under the agreement, the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the vendee special damages for lost profits as the vendee suffered no "out-of-pocket" damages.
|
|||||
| Salon 2000, Inc. v. Dauwalter, A06-1227,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the noncompete agreement between the salon and the stylist was valid, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the stylist's breach of that agreement, and the salon's damages were reasonably ascertainable, summary judgment was inappropriately granted to the stylist on the salon's breach of employment contract claim.
|
|||||
| State v. Andrade, A06-797,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant to his client that the client needed to pay a $50,000 bribe. He argued that he did not commit theft by swindle as he intended only to keep attorney fees owed to him, but claim of right was irrelevant to that offense. Thus, under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.52, subd. 2(4) and 609.17, subd. 1, his attempted theft by swindle conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Coppage, A06-792,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the victim testified in detail about the sexual assault that occurred when she went to defendant's home next door to borrow a cigarette, the sexual assault nurse found injuries consistent with the assault. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.347.
|
|||||
| State v. Edwards, A06-969,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because the fact that defendant was not given the Miranda warning did not make his interrogation illegal, when defendant was not in custody when he was asked about the gun, as defendant was not restrained as though he were under formal arrest.
|
|||||
| State v. Enger, A05-2117,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's arson sentence was affirmed; because defendant had previously been convicted of four violent crimes, which was twice the minimum required under Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 2, and because they occurred over a 23-year period, the 120-month sentence was not disproportional to the seriousness of his conduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Gherity, A06-184,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an obstruction of legal process case, defendant's right to a unanimous verdict under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01 was not violated because defendant's conduct constituted a single incident--each of the four acts occurred at the same time and in the same place, and the jury was unanimous in its ultimate conclusion that he obstructed legal process.
|
|||||
| State v. Greer, A05-552,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Court of Appeals of Minnesota erred by remanding defendant's departure sentence for felon in possession of a firearm. Under Blakely, the district court had inherent authority to present a sentencing issue under the dangerous-offender statute to the jury.
|
|||||
| State v. Hibbs, A06-986,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant challenged his conviction for violating a city traffic ordinance. Evidence did not support conviction because the record was entirely devoid of any evidence, as required by Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 474.30, that defendant started or accelerated the vehicle with an unnecessary exhibition of speed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
