 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Danforth v. State, A04-1993,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Teague, Crawford did not apply retroactively to defendant's case because rule established by Crawford did not qualify as a "watershed rule" for purposes of Teague. Crawford established new rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure and defendant's case was final at time of Crawford decision.
|
|||||
| In re Peterson, A05-646,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in Minnesota because the attorney engaged in self-dealing when purchasing the client's property, intentionally evaded state sales tax, made dishonest omissions on two applications for medical assistance, misappropriated client funds on two occasions, and had a history of professional discipline.
|
|||||
| Lietz v. N. States Power Co., A04-901,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where restaurant was damaged in explosion due to rupture in gas line by respondents while installing utility pole anchor, claim was barred by statute of limitations of Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a) because injuries were caused by improvement to real property even though anchor was not completely installed.
|
|||||
| Piney Ridge Lodge, Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, A05-2387,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal was affirmed because Minnesota tax law did not provide that discussions or negotiations with the Minnesota Department of Revenue suspended the appeal period to challenge the assessment of past due taxes imposed by the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.
|
|||||
| Schleicher v. State, A04-1892, A05-1348,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective, Sixth Amendment, for failing to elicit expert testimony showing that petitioner did not know his actions were wrong because counsel presented extensive testimony from a favorable expert witness on the issue of petitioner's mental illness defense and thoroughly cross-examined the State's expert witness.
|
|||||
| State v. Bell, A04-1595,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a violation of a no-contact order case, a court properly admitted evidence of two prior domestic abuse incidents, Minn. Stat. § 634.20, because it considered four incidents simultaneously and concluded that it would admit two but that it would exclude the other two incidents because they were "probably more prejudicial than probative."
|
|||||
| State v. Goodloe, A05-1519,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of premeditation was sufficient to sustain a first-degree murder conviction, Minn. Stat. § 609.185, because defendant deliberately followed the victim, a security camera showed defendant chambering a round as he entered the store, defendant pursued the victim through the store, and then shot the victim three times in the head.
|
|||||
| State v. Holmes, A04-1134,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Duration of defendant's consecutive sentence imposed under Minn. Stat. § 169A.28, subd. 1, was measured by criminal history score, which was not amended downward under Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.F as it did not apply to mandatory consecutive sentence under Minn. Stat. § 169A.28; defendant had to serve misdemeanor sentence, then felony sentence.
|
|||||
| State v. Valtierra, A05-919,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although erroneously admitted, expert testimony, Minn. R. Evid. 704, regarding "triangulation" in a drug deal was harmless because the jury heard that the officer's experience in the case was based on conversations with the shooting victim, the basis of the officer's experience was her training, and therefore, the testimony was not mysterious.
|
|||||
| In re M.A.R., A05-1687,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pat down search of defendant for the officer's safety before placing him in a squad car did not violate Minn. Const. art. I, § 10 as Minn. Stat. § 260C.175 (2004) authorized an officer to transport defendant to a safe location as he was in violation of a curfew ordinance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
