 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| C & M Real Estate Servs. v. Thondikulam, A06-1459,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a creditor's attempt to redeem the property failed because it was not a lien creditor when it filed its notice of intent to redeem under Minn. Stat. § 580.25, the trial court properly granted a junior lien creditor's motion for summary judgment and ordered a creditor-assignee to vacate the property.
|
|||||
| Grabow v. Weaver, A06-1373,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In property owners' declaratory judgment action against their neighbors seeking to protect their easement rights over a historic road that crossed the parties' properties, as the record failed to establish one neighbor's claim to an unrestricted deeded easement based upon his chain of title, the district court erred in granting such an easement.
|
|||||
| In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kiefer, No. A07-1806,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Krizak v. Freelance Professionals, Inc., A06-1683,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ULJ properly determined an employee engaged in employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits as his frequent, unexcused absences, culminating with the hostility in his final telephone calls, demonstrated an intentional, serious disregard of his employer's interests.
|
|||||
| Shattuck v. State, A06-2034,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a third-degree criminal sexual conduct case, denial of the petitioner's request to withdraw his guilty plea under Minn. Stat. § 590.04 was proper as he waited until after his sentence expired before bringing the motion to withdraw and, at that time, the district court could not have reduced a later added conditional-release term.
|
|||||
| Sholl v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y, A06-1873,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nurse was properly disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. §§ 268.085, .095 when she quit her job during an extended leave of absence as her subjective belief that she was being persecuted and conspired against did not constitute such harassment or unfair treatment so as to justify her quitting her job.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, A06-1699,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1, appellant's guilty plea was entered intelligently where he signed plea agreement and his claim that he could enter a plea, waive his rights, and be confused about whether he could raise a defense was not credible. Record showed that appellant was questioned directly and understood consequences of the plea.
|
|||||
| State v. Cannedy, A06-979,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b) after his motion to suppress was denied was proper because the challenged evidence was not discovered as a result of defendant's detention in the squad car.
|
|||||
| State v. Haro, A06-1271,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal sexual conduct and domestic assault case, defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel under U.S. Const. amend. VI was not violated as decisions regarding which legal defenses to raise were tactical decisions within counsel's discretion, and defendant's counsel did in fact raise a consent defense during trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
