 |
|
 |
|
|
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.O. v. Doe, A07-0826,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in vacating a contact agreement under Minn. Stat. § 259.58 between a biological father and adoptive parents as the father violated multiple provisions of the contact agreement and made repeated threats to the adoptive parents and to the child's safety and liberty.
|
|||||
| Colliers v. Dakota County Dev. Agency, A06-1993,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dakota County Community Development Agency properly terminated a tenant's section 8 housing benefits under 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c) as the evidence showed that the tenant's failure to report income and an apartment move was intentional, and that the tenant's head injury did not cause his failure to report.
|
|||||
| Cristescu v. McGowan, A06-2455,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restorative dentist was entitled to dismissal of a malpractice action because the patient failed to file an affidavit of expert review as required by Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 2; letters from two dentists, who did not state that the restorative dentist's care fell below the applicable standard of care, were insufficient.
|
|||||
| Erickson v. Erickson, A06-2061,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification of a husband's child support obligation under Minn. Stat. § 518.64 was proper as there was no basis for finding that he was voluntarily underemployed or that his move was in bad faith, as he moved closer to the children to an area he had worked in the past, and his bonus income was not reliable or guaranteed.
|
|||||
| Farmers Home Mut. Ins. Co. v. Havlik, A06-2259,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the victim sued the family and their son as a result of the son's sexual assault of the victim, the family's homeowner's policy insurer was not collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of the son's intent as it was not a party to a prior stipulation that the son's act was not an "intentional tort" because of his mental deficiency.
|
|||||
| Friends of the Riverfront v. DeLaSalle High Sch., A06-2222, A07-944,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously in approving certificates of appropriateness to a high school for the construction of an athletic facility because there was a no feasible and prudent alternative finding under Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 when none of the non-adjacent proposed alternative sites met the high school's needs.
|
|||||
| McLeod v. Hodgeman, A06-2168,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tenant's negligence action against his landlord when he suffered severe injuries by a pit bull owned by a person who lived in the same house, because the dog bite occurred in an area controlled by the dog owner, the landlord was not a harborer of the pit bull so as to be secondarily liable under the dog-bite statute, Minn. Stat. § 347.22.
|
|||||
| State v. Austin, A07-33,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At probation-revocation hearings, defendant admitted violating her probation for a controlled-substance crime by failing to enter treatment, failing to abstain from drugs, and failing to contact her probation officer. In revoking probation, the district court did not find defendant to be credible on the contention that rape triggered her relapse.
|
|||||
| State v. Fleischman, A06-1553,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officers saw defendant acting as a lookout while his brother spent several hours in the fish house outside his mobile home, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for possession of methamphetamine inside the fish house and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine under Minn. Stat. § 609.175, subd. 2.
|
|||||
| State v. Hendricks, A06-1953,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was arrested for DWI under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5), the officer read defendant the implied-consent advisory and told him that refusal to take a test to determine if he was under the influence of alcohol was a crime. The officer's request for a breath sample was not compromised by a show of official authority.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
