 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christianson v. State, A05-1853,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to a limited record on appeal, a remand of a postconviction case for an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine if the closure of a court during certain testimony was too broad and violated an inmate's right to a public trial under U.S. Const. amend. VI and Minn. Const. art. I, § 6.
|
|||||
| In re Welfare of J.C.P., A05-1294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting State's motion to prosecute a juvenile as an adult for three counts of first-degree murder was upheld where Blakely did not render adult certification statute, Minn. Stat. § 260B.125, subd. 1, unconstitutional. The juvenile did not have a right under U.S. Const. amend. VI to a jury determination of the facts supporting certification.
|
|||||
| Metro. Airports Comm'ns v. Bearman, A05-2041,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ruling that city was entitled to a portion of a condemnation proceeding affecting the landowners' property was reversed as city did not comply with the procedures in Minn. Stat. § 429.061, subd. 1 in imposing a special assessment on the property; thus, the assessment was invalid and unenforceable and the landowners were entitled to the proceeds.
|
|||||
| State v. Colbert, A05-855,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, under Minn. Stat. § 609.185, because defendant was seen arriving at a bar with a fedora and top coat, a witness testified that she heard a part of the conversation between defendant and the victim, and witnesses later saw defendant, who was wearing a topcoat, shoot the victim.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Benedictine Health Ctr./Self-Insured Berkley Admin. Co., A06-583,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bartheld v. County of Koochiching, A05-2124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the applicants' conditional-use-permit application was improper because the county did not follow the statutory procedures for enactment of an ordinance set forth in Minn. Stat. §§ 375.51, subd. 1, and 394.34. Consequently, the interim zoning ordinance was invalid and did not provide a basis to deny the application.
|
|||||
| State v. Edwards, A04-2396,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err by instructing jury on an aggressor's right to a claim of self-defense under Minn. Jury Instructions Crim. No. 7.07 because there was evidence indicating that defendant was initial aggressor, and because the instruction did not permit a jury to ground forfeiture of the defense simply on a conversation between defendant and victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Skipintheday, A04-1293,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was found guilty of three counts of being an accomplice after-the-fact pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 3, all arising from a single behavioral incident, did not have multiple victims, and was therefore not subject to multiple sentences under Minn. Stat. § 609.035.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
