 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gail v. State, A06-2271,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following conviction for first degree murder, petitioner's request for post-conviction relief was properly denied when petitioner presented issues that should have been raised on appeal because petitioner either knew of the claims or should have known of the claims at the time of the direct appeal.
|
|||||
| In re GlaxoSmithKline PLC, A04-2150,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When State filed antitrust action against pharmaceutical company, documents received under civil investigative demand became part of court record and were no longer confidential under Minn. Stat. § 13.39, subd. 3; district court could issue a protective order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03 to protect the company's First Amendment association rights.
|
|||||
| State v. Bailey, A05-2515,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly rejected defendant's Batson challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment because the prospective juror displayed an emotional reaction to others' judgment of defendant, defendant offered no reason to think that the strike was racially motivated, and there were no racial overtones in the case; defendant and the victim were both Caucasian.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, A05-1041,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not be guilty of aiding and abetting a conspiracy to commit a controlled substance crime in the second degree in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.022, subd. 1(1), 152.096, and 609.05 (2006) because there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that defendant had known of such a conspiracy.
|
|||||
| State v. Ganpat, A06-1176,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statement was voluntary under the Fifth Amendment because the use of techniques appealing to defendant's emotions and sympathies did not rise to the level of being "so coercive, so manipulative, or so overpowering" that he was deprived of his right to remain silent, and detectives did not make implied or actual promises to defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Osborne, A05-988,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court of appeals' properly affirmed the revocation of appellant's probation because the district court had discretion to revoke his probation and did so after a full review of his lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures; thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his probation.
|
|||||
| State v. Ross, A04-1715,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not prejudiced by the improper joinder, under Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.03, of theft by swindle charges because evidence connecting defendant to any one of the theft-by-swindle offenses made his involvement in each of the other theft-by-swindle offenses more probable by shedding light on his intent and participation in each offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Sorenson, A06-746,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violation of a Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordinance that prohibited keeping more than two restricted watercraft at a dock was improper because the term "kept at" as used in the ordinance was ambiguous. Thus, a guest's intermittent use of a dock was not a violation of the ordinance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
