 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Danielson v. Danielson, A05-2569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Determination of property division in the martial dissolution proceeding was reversed and remanded because the quitclaim deed was unambiguous, and the district court erred both by admitting and considering parol evidence to determine the meaning of the deed.
|
|||||
| In re No Fault Benefits Against Progressive Ins. Co., A05-2020, A06-58, A06-59,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed an award of benefits to some insureds and held that as the claims for benefits were for amounts less than $10,000, the arbitrators had subject-matter jurisdiction to arbitrate the claims even without a formal denial of benefits by the insurer under Minn. Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 2.
|
|||||
| Kellogg v. Woods, A05-1837,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A seller of a lake cabin was liable to two buyers under Minn. Stat. § 115.55, subd. 6(b), based on an assertion that a septic system was compliant since he had reason to know otherwise; the evidence showed that, despite the seller's inattention, he had reason to know of operational problems due to several incidents.
|
|||||
| Pahnke v. Anderson Moving & Storage, A05-2401,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though two officers were not protected from their ministerial act of serving an eviction notice and immediately removing a tenant, they were still immune from liability because they executed a court order requiring her immediate removal according to its facially valid terms.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, A05-1167,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person under Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b, even though his prior burglary conviction was deemed a misdemeanor after he completed probation, because that fact did not alter the fact that he was convicted of a crime of violence.
|
|||||
| State v. K.M.M., A05-1960,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In appellate court's review of petitioner's request for expungement, under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3, trial court did not err in denying the request because petitioner's convictions were not resolved in her favor. Also, although murder indictment was dismissed, dismissal did not occur until after grand jury made probable cause determination.
|
|||||
| Idusogie v. Kiffmeyer, A06-1516,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Secretary of state properly rejected candidate's nominating petition because it lacked number of signatures required under Minn. Stat. § 204B.08, subd. 3(a) (2004), and candidate could not file additional signatures for nominating petition and/or petition filed in place of required filing fee after 5 p.m. on last day for filing for elective office.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., A04-2308,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee had discussed with her employer that possibility of participating in a work-release program, but employer failed to verify employment. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development erred in denying benefits because in this situation, employee's absenteeism was not misconduct, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6.
|
|||||
| Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., A04-2088 and A04-2054,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute over insurer's imposition of surcharge on homes with older electrical systems, supreme court found courts could not order refunds to insureds because of filed rate doctrine. Proposed rates were filed with Minnesota Department of Commerce, pursuant Minn. Stat. § 60A.031; doctrine reflected separation of powers and comity considerations.
|
|||||
| State v. Ramey, A04-1056,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A remand in defendant's case was appropriate because, although Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 applied to unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct, once a defendant met the burden of showing that the misconduct was error that was plain, the State had the burden of showing that the error did not affect that defendant's substantial rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
