 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Reed v. Albaaj, A05-1858,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in determining that father was not entitled to protection of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C.S. app. § 501 et seq., in dissolution proceeding; father was not on active duty within meaning of 10 U.S.C.S. § 101(d)(1) and, thus, not entitled to SCRA protection because he was incarcerated in military prison.
|
|||||
| Hankerson v. State, A06-168,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The retroactive application of Minn. Stat. § 244.10, subd. 5(a) (2005) and Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D (2005) to an inmate's resentencing did not violate the Double Jeopardy and the Ex Post Facto Clauses because resentencing was not a second prosecution and the change allowing the juries was procedural and benefitted the inmate.
|
|||||
| State v. Chauvin, A05-726,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed a judgment imposing a double upward durational departure from the presumptive guideline sentence for felony theft by swindle. The district court had authority to impanel a jury to make findings on aggravating sentencing factors and the aggravating factor of a vulnerable victim did not have to appear in the complaint.
|
|||||
| Townsend v. State, A06-45,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of appellant's third petition for postconviction relief because all of appellant's claims in his third petition for postconviction relief were barred by the Knaffla rule and no established exception to that rule applied. In addition, court rejected appellant's attempt to create a new exception.
|
|||||
| EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. County of Hennepin, A06-96,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where taxpayer sought to compel the production of information in county's files regarding third-party properties, tax court properly denied taxpayer's motion to compel because tax court's determination to analyze the issue within the rubric of the balancing test of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act was not erroneous.
|
|||||
| In re Mayrand, A04-1704,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's misconduct in his representation of clients, finance matters, and dealings with court, including violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 4.1, 8.1(a)(3), and 8.4(b)-(d); Minn. R. Law. Prof. Resp. 25; and Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Opinions 13 and 15, warranted disbarment.
|
|||||
| State v. Hart, A05-2066,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court had the authority to dismiss a criminal complaint "in the interests of justice," but the State could refile the complaint. Thus, court of appeals erred when it vacated district court's dismissal order, but it acted properly in requiring the district court to make a probable cause determination on the refiled complaint.
|
|||||
| Minch v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed Dist., A05-2339,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision affirming a watershed district's order requiring a landowner to clean and maintain a public right-of-way ditch on his property was reversed as nothing in Minn. Stat. ch. 103D explicitly or implicitly authorized it to impose such an order. The case was remanded to determine whether siltation was an obstruction under Minn. Stat. § 103E.075.
|
|||||
| State v. Kendell, A05-427,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain the premeditation element of defendant's attempted murder convictions, Minn. Stat. § 609.18, because both child victims sustained life-threatening injuries, one was hit by three separate gunshots, and after shooting one victim, defendant walked down the hallway to shoot the children.
|
|||||
| Rixmann v. City of Prior Lake, A06-252,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In landowner's action to declare that a turnaround at the end of her street had become public under Minn. Stat. § 160.05, subd. 1, summary judgment in favor of the city was error as the landowner raised a sufficient issue of fact regarding the city's maintenance of the turnaround to withstand summary judgment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
