 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fisher v. Dep't of Corr., A06-76 and A06-77,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 20, 2006, Decided , December 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals' reversal of district court's denial of summary judgment based on its conclusion that respondents were immune from petitioner's § 1983 claims was vacated because court of appeals might not have considered petitioner's § 1983 claims against state officials in their personal capacities or his request for injunctive relief.
|
|||||
| State v. Al-Naseer, A05-1394,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 20, 2006, Decided , December 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Farrah, A05-1277,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 20, 2006, Decided , December 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Krasky, A04-2011,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 20, 2006, Decided , December 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Breza v. City of Minnetrista, A04-2286,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reversal of writ of mandamus was affirmed because Minnesota State law provided the City authority to grant the owner a 400 square foot exemption from State law requirements relating to wetlands under the Wetland Conservation Act, the extent of the City's authority, and Minn. Stat. § 15.99 could not operate to grant a broader exemption.
|
|||||
| In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Plummer, A06-1352,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from practice of law for at least one year pursuant to Minn. R. Law. Prof. Resp. 15. He had neglected client while he was under a prior disciplinary suspension, he failed to provide notification of suspension as required by Minn. R. Law. Prof. Resp. 26(b), and he failed to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
|
|||||
| State v. Melde, A05-1553 and A05-1604,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory, Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2, did not violate due process rights as lack of more specific warnings as to consequences of test-refusal did not violate federal due process, U.S. Const. amend. XIV; lack of more specific advisory as to consequences of test-refusal did not violate Minn. Const. art. I, § 7.
|
|||||
| Milner v. Farmers Ins. Exch., A06-178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, December 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly relied on Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 8, as authority for its grant of injunctive relief and civil penalties in an employees' class action suit against employer for alleged violations of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act; district court erred, however, in awarding penalties to employees instead of to State of Minnesota.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
