 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Thompson, A06-729,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that his conviction of third-degree test refusal under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 had to be reversed because the deputy's reading of the implied-consent advisory misled him about the legal consequences of test refusal was not considered on appeal as defendant did not raise this issue before the trial court.
|
|||||
| State v. Ybarra, A06-1753, A06-1766,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a felon in possession of a firearm case, denial of defendant's motion to suppress the gun found in his apartment was error as the warrant to search his apartment was not supported by probable cause, as required by Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, because the application failed to establish a connection between an alleged crime and his apartment.
|
|||||
| Steinke v. Columbus Twp., A06-1009,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In landowners' appeal from a township board's assessments for a project to install sewer lines, the trial court did not err in finding the assessments were valid under Minn. Stat. § 429.051 as the landowners' properties received a net benefit from the improvement in question.
|
|||||
| Stone v. Jetmar Props., LLC, A06-851,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a seller quitclaimed property to a LLC, a mortgagee who had extended a mortgage and organized a foreclosure sale had no recourse against the LLC because the LLC was never properly organized and the doctrine of de facto corporation had been abolished.
|
|||||
| Tweeton v. State, A06-209,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of appellant's petition for postconviction relief was proper because his argument that an accident reconstruction expert's evidence was newly discovered evidence was without merit since appellant did not show that the evidence would not have been cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful, or that it would have changed the result of the trial.
|
|||||
| Ussatis v. Ussatis, A06-1473,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied a father's motion to modify his child support obligation and imputed income to him as his voluntary underemployment did not meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d).
|
|||||
| Williams v. Meridian Servs., A06-1112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unemployment law judge properly determined that an employee voluntarily quit under Minn. Stat. § 268.095 when she failed to report to work and was thus disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits as the employee was repeatedly told when to be at work, yet told no one of her ongoing chiropractor appointments.
|
|||||
| Zimmer v. State, A06-1147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a) did not bar a petitioner's motion for postconviction relief, denial of relief was proper as there was no factual support for the petitioner's allegation that his plea agreement was improperly induced or that his sentencing worksheet contained erroneous information.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
