 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Gilbertson, A07-516,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Ouellette, A06-1727,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial, in which he was convicted of DWI, the trial court erred in failing to instruct jury, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subds. 1(b), 2, that the State was required to prove that defendant was lawfully arrested and the implied-consent advisory was read to him, but under the circumstances, the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Bense v. Alliance Sav. Co., A07-1475,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, October 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Belcourt, A06-1084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by determining that consecutive sentencing was mandatory, because defendant was on probation for a prior DWI conviction when she committed the instance first-degree DWI offense, and defendant was convicted and sentenced before the effective date of the amendment to Minn. Stat. § 169A.28, which was not retroactive.
|
|||||
| Deal v. Deal, A07-278,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred by denying State's request to stay stepchildren's civil depositions during husband's criminal trial for sexually abusing stepdaughter because policy interest in protecting integrity of criminal trial was particularly strong, as husband admitted that he intended to use depositions to gain information relevant to criminal trial.
|
|||||
| In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Rhodes, A04-2252,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was disbarred because he violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.16(d), 8.1(b) and Minn. R. Law. Prof. Resp. 25 by repeatedly neglecting client matters, mishandling client funds, failing to protect clients' interests, failing to respond to disciplinary authority, and violating prior probation conditions.
|
|||||
| Schmieg v. County of Chisago, A07-503,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the tax court's classification of a taxpayer's property as agricultural was erroneous, given the language of Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 23(f), and the fact that at least some of the property appeared to be used for agricultural purposes, it seemed that commercial classification of the entire property was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Spann v. State, A06-1474,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no merit to a prisoner's claim that, because jury did not find that he used firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.11, he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. The prisoner, who was convicted of first-degree murder while committing robbery, was not sentenced under § 609.11, but was sentenced under Minn. Stat. § 609.185.
|
|||||
| State v. Bussmann, A05-1782,
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clergy sexual conduct standard was not unduly vague and did not violate due process, because the terms "ongoing" and "religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort" had acquired reasonably definite meanings, and those terms provided a sufficiently fixed legal standard to determine what was prohibited under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(l)(ii).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
