 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Braend v. Braend, A05-2522,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly granted a wife's petition for a subsequent order for protection pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, where the record supported the district court's finding that the wife was reasonably in fear of physical harm from her husband, who had made repeated and intrusive telephone calls to her.
|
|||||
| In re Sannes, A06-1416,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court publicly reprimanded an attorney who admitted to allegations that he committed professional misconduct, namely, knowing disobedience of a tribunal, failure to communicate with a client, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c), 1.4, and 8.4(d).
|
|||||
| Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jablonske, A05-2541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer and a finding that the insured's homeowner's policy did not provide coverage for a suit against the insured by the driver was appropriate because the insured was in the process of developing the land at the time of the accident and the business premises exclusion of the policy barred coverage.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. DiMa Corp., A05-2470,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an employee was fired after a single violation of the employer's cash-register policy, and the violation did not cause the employer to lose any money, the appellate court affirmed the employee did not commit misconduct pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6, and, thus, was entitled to unemployment benefits.
|
|||||
| State v. Krasky, A04-2011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child-victim's statement to a nurse practitioner was properly suppressed on the ground that it was testimonial evidence that would violate the Confrontation Clause because the nurse was acting in concert with the government, there was no medical reason for the interview, and there was no imminent threat to the child-victim's safety or welfare.
|
|||||
| State v. Caulfield, A04-1484,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Crime lab report, offered at trial to prove that substance seized from defendant was cocaine, was testimonial under Crawford rule, and its admission under Minn. Stat. § 634.15 without lab analyst's testimony violated his confrontation rights because he was not given notice that failure to request the analyst's testimony would waive those rights.
|
|||||
| Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., A04-1442, A04-1612,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were multiple insures of appellant that built homes that suffered water damage, terms of policies prevented insurers from becoming liable for damages to home during the insurer's policy period, if property damage was "expected" from appellant's standpoint before the policy period began.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
