 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Enright v. Lehmann, A06-347,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landlord, who obtained a default judgment against his tenant for rents due, could not garnish funds from the tenant's joint accounts to satisfy the judgment under Minn. Stat. § 524.6-203(a) as the tenant's wife contributed all the funds to the accounts and did not intend to confer ownership of the funds on the tenant.
|
|||||
| In re Andrade, A06-426,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney who was convicted of attempted theft by swindle of a client and who was found in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a)(2) and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (e), was disbarred because a sanction less than disbarment would not have adequately protected the integrity of the judicial system and the public.
|
|||||
| Rhodes v. State, A07-148,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimed items of newly discovered evidence did not entitle defendant to postconviction relief because (1) the first item had no bearing on the case's underlying facts, (2) the second item was not shown to be previously unavailable or to indicate a probability of acquittal on retrial, and (3) the third item reformulated a previously presented claim.
|
|||||
| St. Croix Dev., LLC v. Gossman, A06-1879,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying discharge of a notice of lis pendens was not immediately appealable under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(g) or the collateral order doctrine because such an order was not separate from the merits of the underlying action.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, A06-1481,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly admitted defendant's prior conviction into evidence under Minn. R. Evid. 609 because the viability of defendant's self-defense claim turned largely on facts that only he could testify to and therefore his credibility was central to the case and the ruling did not prevent defendant from testifying.
|
|||||
| State v. Farrah, A05-1277,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State did not establish that defendant, a limited English-speaker, made a valid waiver of his Miranda rights and the admission of defendant's statement was not harmless, defendant's conviction of felony fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.345, subd. 1(b) (2002) was reversed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
