 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., A05-1995,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because employee's theft undermined her employer's ability to assign essential job functions to her, the conduct had a significant adverse impact on the employer, and it was properly determined that employee was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she committed employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (2004).
|
|||||
| State v. McFee, A05-283,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In calculating defendant's criminal history score, defendant did not have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of the fact of a prior juvenile adjudication, and therefore defendant's sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Kuhlman, A06-568,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to dismiss a violation of Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 474.640 was granted because it conflicted with the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act's uniformity requirement and changed the burden of proof under Minn. Stat. § 169.06, subd. 4; therefore, the ordinance was invalid under Minn. Stat. § 169.022.
|
|||||
| State v. Al-Naseer, A05-1394,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, September 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because district court erred by construing Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1(7) (2000), to not impose the mens rea requirement that a driver knew or had reason to know that he had been in an accident that resulted in bodily injury to or death of a person, court reversed defendant's conviction of vehicular homicide and remanded for additional findings.
|
|||||
| In re Moulton, A05-1865,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer's failure to timely file employer quarterly withholding tax returns and timely pay employer withholding taxes violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) and warranted a 90-day suspension with conditions for reinstatement.
|
|||||
| Reiter v. Kiffmeyer, A06-1508,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court denied a petition by a citizen to remove a candidate's name from the ballot because the court held that there was nothing in Minn. Stat. § 204B.11, subd. 2, that barred the use of signatures obtained prior to the 14-day filing period.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Kiffmeyer, A06-1527,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court denied the candidate's petition to be placed on the ballot as the candidate's failure to file an affidavit of candidacy with the proper election official before the filing deadline as required by Minn. Stat. § 204B.09, subd. 1(d) prevented the candidate's name from being placed on the primary election ballot.
|
|||||
| State v. Gomez, A03-1075,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient similarity between the instant crime and defendant's prior crimes, and therefore prior crimes were properly admitted under Minn. R. Evid. 404(b) because in each case, the victims were elderly, the victims were physically assaulted in their homes, and the victims' wallets or purses were taken or money was demanded.
|
|||||
| State v. Losh, A04-1028,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a kidnapping case under Minn. Stat. § 609.25, subd. 2, defendant's upward durational departure sentence was proper as two aggravating factors existed: (1) the victim was treated with particular cruelty because he was left, severely injured, in a secluded location by a swamp, and (2) three people were involved in the kidnapping.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
