 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Mendoza, A07-285,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Concurrent sentences for DWI convictions were reversed and remanded because Minn. Stat. § 169A.28, subd. 1, mandated consecutive sentences, when the two DWI offenses arose out of separate courses of conduct, and defendant's sentences were not executed for either of his offenses, as the district court stayed both sentences.
|
|||||
| State v. Miles, A06-322,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's confession was substantiated by sufficient evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.03 to sustain his theft conviction because evidence showed that defendant called the victim telling him that he had taken the victim's shotgun and truck and had left them in a school parking lot; the victim had not given defendant permission to take the items.
|
|||||
| State v. Padilla, A06-446,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions of two counts of attempted second-degree murder by drive-by shooting, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 609.19, 609.66 and 609.17, were reversed and remanded because defendant could not specifically intend to cause the death of another by recklessly discharging a firearm at or toward them.
|
|||||
| State v. Patterson, A05-2237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of postconviction relief was affirmed because the petitioner's awareness of the likely imposition of the 10-year conditional-release term could be traced not only to Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 and well-established caselaw, but also to the pre-plea investigation report, which the petitioner received four months before sentencing.
|
|||||
| State v. Schmidt, A06-1042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DWI conviction was affirmed because the portion of the implied-consent law that was declared unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court did not have an effect on evidence obtained for a criminal DWI proceeding, as the court was careful to sever only the portion of Minn. Stat. § 169A.53 purporting to delete prompt judicial review.
|
|||||
| State v. Sole, A06-1786,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in making downward dispositional departure by sentencing defendant, a college student, to probation for first-degree controlled substance crime where defendant was amenable to probation; letters were submitted on defendant's behalf to court from his mother, his former employer, and the university president.
|
|||||
| Wells Fargo Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Meyer, A06-1560,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the lender was affirmed because the borrower had not offered clear and convincing evidence sufficient to rebut the affidavit of personal service, other than a mere averment that he was not served with the summons, and there was no ambiguity in the contract between the borrower and the lender.
|
|||||
| Wikstrom v. Little Earth of United Tribes Hous. Corp., A06-1023,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the employer was proper in an employee's retaliatory discharge claim under Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) as the employee's purpose in reporting that certain violations were occurring was not to expose an illegality (it was part of her job), and the alleged violations were well known by the employer.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Brooklyn Ctr. Motors, LLC, A06-1467,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of unemployment benefits due to misconduct was reversed because the claimant's primary responsibility was detailing cars, and the claimant's single incident of refusing to clean up litter did not significantly impact the employer's ability to assign an essential function of the job to the claimant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
