 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jessop v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, A06-1775,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A police officer had probable cause to believe that a motorist had been in physical control of a vehicle while impaired. The officer had seen the vehicle being operated and saw the motorist, who admitted that she was intoxicated, leave the driver's side of the vehicle and enter the front passenger side of an SUV.
|
|||||
| McIntosh v. McIntosh, A06-1432,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding, in part, against the husband in a dissolution action was improper because the district court erred by treating the undistributed subchapter S earnings and the rents paid to the business as marital property. The undistributed earnings and rents should have been deducted from the cash value of the corporation.
|
|||||
| Rannow v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., A06-1994,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where relator suffered a seizure and was unable to drive to work, her employment was terminated; the unemployment law judge did not err by finding that relator was ineligible for benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4), because she was not available for suitable employment, not actively seeking suitable employment, and not able to work.
|
|||||
| State v. Dahlin, A06-0717,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree intentional murder, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) and Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1, was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant told several people that he wanted to "kill" or "hurt" the victim; the victim's DNA was found on defendant's pants and gloves.
|
|||||
| State v. Foster, A06-818,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of a fifth-degree controlled substance crime. Affidavit in support of search warrant was not deficient because, although time frame was ambiguous, district court's interpretation was reasonable. Further, the affidavit sufficiently established the reliability of the confidential informant.
|
|||||
| State v. Hussong, A07-785,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The suppression of evidence in defendant's boating-while-intoxicated prosecution was improper under Minn. R. 6110.1200, subps. 3(A), (5) because defendant did not have a Type IV device in plain sight of the deputy who stopped his boat; thus, the deputy had probable cause to believe that defendant was violating the law.
|
|||||
| State v. Knoll, A06-1245,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of motor-vehicle theft, and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance. Defendant's conviction was invalid because, although defendant agreed to a Lothenback trial, defendant's waiver did not conform to procedures in Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3. Strict compliance was mandatory.
|
|||||
| State v. Larson, A06-623,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166 because a case worker repeatedly informed defendant of his duty to register, he repeatedly refused to comply, and the fact that defendant was presented with the wrong form did not establish insufficient evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Stewart, A06-1928,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant entered a guilty plea to felony theft by swindle, there was no abuse of discretion in making an upward durational departure for a major economic offense under Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.D.2.b(4); there were multiple acts against the same victim, the acts occurred over several months, and defendant used her cashier position.
|
|||||
| State v. White, A06-719,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant following his conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree and burglary in the first, trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing double durational departure because multiple penetrations of victim occurred, victim was 69 years old, victim suffered trauma, and assault occurred within zone of privacy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
