 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Risdall v. Brown-Wilbert, Inc., A06-1233,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was undisputed that appellant corporation's securities were sold pursuant to Regulation D, 17 C.F.R. §§ 230.501-230.508, the sales were governed solely by federal law, and respondents' state security law claims were preempted.
|
|||||
| Sander & Co. v. Northern Capital Ins., A06-971,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an insured's suit against its insurer and insurance broker when a fire damage claim was not fully paid, because it was the broker that breached its contract by failing to provide agreed-value coverage as the insured sought, imputing any liability to the insurer for depreciation or ordinance-and-law compliance deductions was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Sletto v. Wesley Constr., Inc., A06-1413,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff homeowners' statutory-warranty claim accrued before the effective date of Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (2006), the limitation on commencement did not apply, and the district court's summary-judgment dismissal of the statutory-warranty claim against defendant home builder on statute of limitations grounds was reversed and remanded.
|
|||||
| State v. Dickerson, A06-348,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to withdraw a guilty plea was affirmed because defendant failed to establish the "fair and just" standard or the "manifest injustice" standard, when defendant indicated that he understood his rights, that he had been able to discuss the case with his attorney, and that his attorney had answered his questions to his satisfaction.
|
|||||
| State v. Holmes, A06-791,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No abuse of discretion denying a downward departure from the mandatory minimum sentence of 36-months for second-degree assault with a gun under Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5(a), because defendant's experiences from past abusive relationships did not excuse or mitigate her actions, and substantial and compelling reasons did not support a departure.
|
|||||
| State v. Jensen, A06-1057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of illegally driving an all-terrain vehicle in a wilderness management area (WMA). State sufficient proved that the area of frozen lake on which defendant rode was WMA because admission of documents did not violate Confrontation Clause, and defendant failed to object to hearsay testimony.
|
|||||
| State v. Keener, A06-730,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of downward dispositional departure sentence was affirmed because the court carefully considered all of the relevant factors before finding that there were not substantial and compelling circumstances warranting a departure, and the presence of mitigating factors did not obligate the district court to grant a dispositional departure.
|
|||||
| State v. Kim, A06-515,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of posed photo of victim was not improper admission of hearsay because photo was not misleading and was properly illustrative. There was no prosecutorial misconduct in cross-examination of appellant's character witnesses since they were also fact witnesses, questions were not hypothetical, and questions did not presume appellant's guilt.
|
|||||
| State v. Lyons, A05-546,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that the assault was a "savage attack" on the victim that occurred over a long course of time supported a finding of particular cruelty; as defendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting first-degree assault, the acts of the others who had aided were attributable to him for sentencing purposes under Minn. Stat. § 609.05.
|
|||||
| State v. Raisch, A06-2362,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and theft of a motor vehicle after he allegedly hit a farmer in the head and took the farmer's truck. Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress because evidence was critical to State's case, and the evidence was admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 403.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
