 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commandeur LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc., A05-2014,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Columbus Day was a legal holiday under Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 and thus was not included in computing the last day of the 60-day appeal period under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, the appellate court erred in dismissing companies' appeal as untimely from the dismissal of their civil claims against a corporation.
|
|||||
| In re Application for PERA Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain , A04-2407,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deputy sheriff had demonstrated that he had a psychological disability that qualified as disability incurred in or arising out of any act of duty. "Any act of duty" included all acts while on duty, and enhanced benefits were payable for disability that was incurred as result of hostile work environment.
|
|||||
| Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., A04-485, A04-486, A04-487, A04-488, A04-489,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although chiropractic clinics were run in violation of corporate practice of medicine act, such violation did not mean contracts were automatically void for violating public policy; rather, it would have been unfair to void contracts because policies underlying the doctrine were not violated and there was an obvious intent to comply with the law.
|
|||||
| Manpower, Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, A06-468,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a corporation excluded its French subsidiary's income in its Minnesota income tax returns under Minn. Stat. § 290.17, the tax commissioner erred in ruling that the corporation was required to include the subsidiary's income as the subsidiary's change from a corporation to a partnership only changed its classification, not its nationality.
|
|||||
| City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP, A05-2316,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company's counterclaims for alleged misrepresentations in a parking ramp construction project, sounding in tort, were dismissed, because to the extent that they might have had any viability as a counterclaim, the city enjoyed statutory and official immunity.
|
|||||
| Enright v. Lehmann, A06-347,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in ruling that the accounts appellant tenant held jointly with his wife were subject to garnishments for the tenant's individual debts because the law upon which appellant tenant relied (the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act) governed only nonprobate transfers upon the death of a joint depositor.
|
|||||
| In re Comm'n Investigation of Issues Governed by Minn. Statutes, Sec. 216A.036, A06-336,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Minn. Stat. § 216A.036 (2004), the employment-restriction statute, unambiguously and constitutionally prohibited relator's employment, and because the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission did not abuse its discretion by imposing a penalty for relator's violation of the statute, the order of the Commission was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst, A06-459,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment denying appellant's request for permanent spousal maintenance was affirmed as modified; the district court was not required to find bad faith on appellant's part before finding that she would be able to meet her needs independently with full-time employment.
|
|||||
| State v. Fleming, A06-1170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the operative definition of "firearm" included a BB gun, Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1 (2004) prohibited possession of a BB gun, notwithstanding the exemption of BB gun from the definition of "pistol" set forth in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 2 (2004), and the order dismissing the charge against respondent was reversed and remanded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
