 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hoyt Props. v. Prod. Res. Group, L.L.C., A05-1293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a company because where a lessor granted a release to the company based on its attorney's factual representations, those representations were actionable, and the reasonableness of the lessor's reliance on them was a question of fact.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Flotterud, A05-869,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted respondent's motion to dismiss appellant's negligence action stemming from a motor vehicle accident where the summons and complaint were not, as required by Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03, served on respondent personally or left with a person of suitable age or discretion residing at his usual place of abode, a nursing home.
|
|||||
| State v. H.A., A05-1792,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court lacked inherent authority to order expungement of respondent's executive branch records after he met the conditions of his Alford plea where the record did not contain evidence that any executive agents abused their discretion. Further, the benefit of expungement to respondent was not commensurate with the disadvantages to the public.
|
|||||
| State v. Lemmer, A05-2481,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in dismissing DWI charges against respondent on the ground that Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(g) (2004) was unconstitutional where the legislature was entitled to enact a statute regulating the application of collateral estoppel without violating the separation of powers doctrine; the doctrine of collateral was substantive law.
|
|||||
| State v. Paul, A05-789,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights because, although initially invoking his right to counsel, the officer terminated the interrogation, and when defendant initiated further discussions, stating he had nothing to do with the murders, the officer read the complete Miranda advisory and defendant indicated that he understood his rights.
|
|||||
| Granville v. Minneapolis Sch. Dist. No.1, A05-1377, A05-1378,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because all school districts in Minnesota may apply for and receive immunity from tort liability under Minn. Stat. § 466.12, subd. 3a, and that the statute treated all school districts and their students similarly, the $1.50 classification did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of either U.S. Const. Amend. XIV or Minn. Const. art. I, § 2.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc., A05-1740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to a contractor in property owners' negligence action in connection with the construction of a sedimentation pond on their easement where the sedimentation pond was an improvement to real property; hence, the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2002).
|
|||||
| Youngquist v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., A05-2362,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of a trustee's motion for a new trial as the instruction given by the trial court to adjust the loss of future aid, advice, comfort, and companionship to present cash value was not a material misstatement of the law and was within the district court's discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
