 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Armstrong v. Dep't of Corr., A06-1488,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the actions of appellant DOC were discretionary, policy considerations weighed in favor of granting vicarious official immunity, and there was no evidence that the DOC acted maliciously, the district court erred by concluding that the DOC was not entitled to vicarious official immunity from respondent's Minnesota Human Rights Act claim.
|
|||||
| Baker v. Baker, A06-1252,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Financial advisor's management of nonmarital funds did not necessitate, nor preclude, a finding that appreciation was active; an examination of husband's efforts showed that it was not the result of mere market forces but marital effort, and thus, an increase was marital property under Minn. Stat. § 518.003 subd. 3b subject to division.
|
|||||
| Boxall v. Boxall, A06-1035,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's spousal maintenance ruling was affirmed because, despite the fact that the husband had been diagnosed with incurable cancer, the husband continued to earn sufficient income to pay maintenance and meet his own expenses (albeit at a reduced level), and his maintenance obligation was not unreasonable and unfair.
|
|||||
| Christians v. Grant Thornton, LLP, A06-1309,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An auditor was entitled to summary judgment as to breach of contract and malpractice claims brought by an insolvent corporation's trustee because the trustee's claims failed to allege recognized, nonspeculative damages, failed to establish sufficient evidence of factual causation, and were equitably barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. State, A06-907,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's postconviction petition challenging his driving while impaired sentence was properly denied because Minn. Stat. § 169A.276, subd. 1(d) (2004) was not unconstitutional; because appellant had five prior driving while impaired convictions, the five-year conditional release period was required by statute.
|
|||||
| Ellingson v. Ellingson, A06-1221, A06-1522,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property distribution under Minn. Stat. § 518.003 was proper as the entire increase in value of the husband's business during the period of the marriage was marital property; and the evidence supported the trial court's valuation for the nonmarital portion of the business at the value determined by a neutral business expert.
|
|||||
| Hanson v. Bieloh, A06-1619,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the ranch owners was affirmed because the exculpatory clause the claimant signed before riding the horse was unambiguous, it released the owners only from liability for ordinary negligence, and there was no disparity in bargaining power because the activity was recreational.
|
|||||
| Harrington v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., A06-1372,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Flight attendants from an airline in bankruptcy were not eligible for unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.085 because their furloughs were voluntary, and the reduction in extra payments for a few months was not so substantial as to cause them to not have a voluntary choice in deciding on a furlough.
|
|||||
| Holthaus v. Renslow, A06-1089,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for new trial was affirmed because the passing statement that the claimant may have been rushing home from work on the night of the accident was insufficient to produce the prejudice that the claimant asserted, particularly where the jury had the opportunity to assess the claimant's character when she testified at trial.
|
|||||
| In re Conservatorship of Schley, A06-1633,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment denying the petition to remove respondents as conservators was affirmed because respondents had priority over others since the conservatee had granted them power of attorney, before it was confirmed that she was suffering from dementia, and the conservatee also agreed to the challenged appointment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
