 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Lyons Marital Trust, A05-1774,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not have authority to reform decedent's will and trust because the testamentary documents were unambiguous and on remand the court was to order distribution as proposed by the trustees in their petition but, the court correctly held that decedent's exercise of her special power of appointment over the family trust was invalid.
|
|||||
| Jaskowiak v. CM Constr. Co., A05-2248,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of unemployment proceedings, worker received inadequate notice when worker failed to appear at hearing; his substantial rights were prejudiced pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(d) because he was not informed that he would be entitled to hearing if he could show good cause for failure to participate.
|
|||||
| State v. L.W.J., A05-2071,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner sought expungement of theft conviction; however, district court lacked authority to order expungement because Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5 did not provide a separate statutory ground for expungement beyond those grounds set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, and district court had no inherent authority to expunge executive-branch records.
|
|||||
| State v. Moon, A05-1047,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for intentional second-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) was appropriate because the record established beyond a reasonable doubt that the omission of an accomplice-testimony instruction did not have a significant impact on the verdict.
|
|||||
| TCM Props., LLC v. Gunderson, A05-1979,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transaction in which a benefactor-mortgagee accepted a mortgage in order both to secure a debt the mortgagors already owed him and to redeem the mortgage and help the mortgagors retain control over the property by extending the redemption period did not violate Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13) (2004).
|
|||||
| Lee v. State, A05-1375,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the summary dismissal of an inmate's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2004), because the inmate's petition raised issues identical to those already determined on appeal following his conviction.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, A04-840,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a domestic abuse victim's statements were admissible under the residual hearsay exception, Minn. R. Evid. 803(24), the court's error in adopting a categorical rule of admissibility for statements of identification by domestic abuse victims under the medical diagnosis exception was harmless.
|
|||||
| Larson v. Wasemiller, A05-1698, A05-1701,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minnesota does not recognize common-law cause of action for negligent credentialing/privileging of a physician by a hospital or other peer review organization, and Minn. Stat. § 145.63-.64 does not grant immunity from such actions, but § 145.64 limits liability to privilege grants not made in reasonable belief that it was warranted by known facts.
|
|||||
| Pillandco, Inc. v. State, A05-1611,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed a judgment holding that respondents were, in fact, the owners of severed mineral interests at issue; in part, the district court did not err when it decided that their verified statements met the content and timeliness requirements of Minn. Stat. §§ 93.52, subd. 2, and 93.55, subd. 1 (2004).
|
|||||
| State v. Mogler, A05-1037,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the term "position of authority" in Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(e) was neither so broad that an ordinary person could not understand what conduct it proscribed nor so narrow that it could not include a police officer, the statute was not unconstitutionally vague.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
