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 Courts - Minnesota - June 28, 2007
	Buggs v. State, A06-1058, SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 28, 2007, Filed View this case - free   Overview: Postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied an inmate's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing because his claims relating to the racial composition of the grand and petit juries were known or should have been known to the inmate at the time of his direct appeal and, thus, were "Knaffla-barred." Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Johnson v. Fabian, A05-2498 and A06-439, SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 28, 2007, Filed View this case - free   Overview: Because extension of inmate's incarceration time rose to level of compulsion and direct appeal of his sex offense conviction was pending when he refused to admit the crime of which he was convicted during required sex offender treatment program, extension of his incarceration violated his privilege against self-incrimination under Fifth Amendment. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	State v. Flowers, A05-213, SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, June 28, 2007, Filed View this case - free   Overview: A Terry stop exceeded the permissible scope under Minn. Const. art. I, § 10 because there was no indication that in the interval between the initial search of defendant's vehicle and the time the officers returned to the vehicle to search it again, the officers learned that defendant was a person who was not entitled to possess a firearm. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.