 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink, A05-2018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of a construction company's motion to join a bank in its foreclosure action against a homeowner as Minn. Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3 precluded the joinder where the company waited more than a year from the date it completed its work to join the bank.
|
|||||
| Nichols v. Reliant Eng'g & Mfg., A05-2165,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee, who left her employment, was eligible to receive unemployment benefits because harassment by a fellow employee, coupled with an employer's failure to effectively address the co-worker's harassment, could satisfy good reason to quit one's employment as required under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3.
|
|||||
| State v. Eakins, A05-1453,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was found guilty of violating Minn. Stat. § 169.444, subd. 6 when he was found to be a car's owner that did not stop for a school bus. The statute was not unconstitutional because it did not criminalize car ownership, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
|
|||||
| State v. Mayhorn, A04-1971,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Scope of prosecutorial misconduct was unprecedented and due to number and seriousness of errors, defendant was denied a fair trial as the Supreme Court of Minnesota was unable to determine if jury based its guilty verdict on admissible evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom or on state's pervasive misconduct and improperly admitted evidence.
|
|||||
| In re Exclusion of Molnar from Canterbury Park, A05-2261,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Racetrack's decision to exclude a patron from its card club did not violate the patron's constitutional or statutory right to due process as the racetrack's exercise of it authorized choice to exclude the patron under Minn. Stat. § 240.27, subd. 5 did not equate to state action for U.S. Const. amend. XIV purposes.
|
|||||
| State v. Flemino, A05-1384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the convictions for burglary and drug possession could be admitted if defendant testified as Minn. R. Evid. 609(a) allowed serious felony convictions to be admitted to impeach defendant's credibility.
|
|||||
| In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct, A05-1955,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of an attorney was improper because the district court did not analyze whether the requested information was rationally related to the charges of misconduct, nor did it consider the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility's need for the information in light of his burden in Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Gouleed, A04-700,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against defendant was appropriate because the record of the first trial showed a manifest necessity for a mistrial because his expert failed to disclose testing he had done related to a critical evidentiary issue in the trial. He was not subjected to double jeopardy under U.S. Const. amend. V, and Minn. Const. art. I § 7.
|
|||||
| State v. Thompson, A04-1808,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The reversal of defendant's sentence was improper because defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived her right to have a jury make findings on sentencing enhancement factors supporting the upward departure based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Such waiver was in compliance with Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 1(2)(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
