 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Irongate Enters. v. County of St. Louis, A06-1193,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because leases contained expense information, the tax court did not err by granting a county's motion to dismiss a taxpayer's petition under Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a), which challenged the county assessor's valuation of a mall, for failure to produce copies of the leases within 60 days after the statutory filing deadline.
|
|||||
| Lorix v. Crompton Corp., A05-2148,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A consumer's antitrust claims against several chemical manufacturers were improperly dismissed as her allegations that she was an end user of tires that had an inflated price due to the manufacturers' alleged anticompetitive conduct to fix the price of rubber-processing chemicals was sufficient to assert standing under Minn. Stat. § 325D.57 (2006).
|
|||||
| Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., A05-1497,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a jury's factual findings that were common to both claims at law and claims for equitable relief were binding upon the district court, the decision in a lease dispute was reversed and the case was remanded so that the district court could determine which of the jury's findings were common to the lessee's equitable claims.
|
|||||
| In re Maltreatment & Disqualification of Kleven, A06-1799,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Caregiver taught disabled men in her charge to use profanity, and she referred to the men pejoratively. Caregiver's interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 626.5572, subd. 2 was rejected because statute mandated reporting of a caregiver's conduct that was not an accident or therapeutic conduct that produced physical pain or emotional distress.
|
|||||
| State v. Perleberg, A06-718,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual conduct after defendant engaged in sexual relations with his daughter for several years. Imposition of three consecutive 144-month sentences, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 2(b), was not an abuse of discretion because sentence did not exaggerate criminality of defendant's conduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Krasky, A04-2011,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child victim's statements to a nurse were non-testimonial and therefore admission of those statements would not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause because assessment was conducted at a children's hospital and primary purpose of the victim's statements to the nurse was to assess and protect the victim's health and welfare.
|
|||||
| State v. Lemmer, A05-2481,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collateral estoppel was inapplicable to the legally of stop of defendant in a driving while intoxicated prosecution that was previously litigated in an implied consent hearing under Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(g) because the Commissioner of Public Safety and State were not in privity and State did not have full and fair opportunity to be heard.
|
|||||
| State v. Mahkuk, A05-1520, A06-2087,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, August 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.229, subd. 2, were improper because the district court abused its discretion in the instruction it gave the jury regarding aiding and abetting first-degree murder. The instruction relieved the State of its burden of proof.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
