 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Robbins v. Robbins, A06-2124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court erred in finding certain things marital assets under Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b, the court affirmed the property division because the trial court properly found an undue hardship under Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 2; the trial court did not err in forgiving support arrearages under Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(e).
|
|||||
| State v. Awad, A06-2306,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion to vacate his petty misdemeanor conviction for transporting a loaded firearm was proper because his plea was made accurately, voluntarily, and intelligently. There were no affirmative statements made to defendant that spoke to any deportation consequences.
|
|||||
| State v. Coker, A06-1531,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a second-degree assault case, accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated under Minn. Stat. § 634.04 because both witnesses placed defendant at the scene, defendant admitted that he was nearby, gunshot residue was found on defendant's hands, and a non-accomplice witness gave an account that was consistent with that of the accomplices.
|
|||||
| State v. Jacobson, A06-2003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to prove that his Wisconsin DWI was related to his prior Minnesota DWI, defendant was not entitled to credit under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B) for time served in Wisconsin when his probation was revoked pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 3(2).
|
|||||
| State v. Patton, A06-1938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor indicated that he was not going to follow the plea agreement to recommend an 84-month sentence. By failing to withdraw his guilty plea to the sale of a controlled substance under Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1(1), defendant waived his challenge to the district court's imposition of an 108-month sentence.
|
|||||
| State v. Peterson, A06-1226,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held that discovery of controlled substances was the result of an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, and thus evidence of the substances should have been excluded; as a result of the exclusion, there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions of felony possession and child endangerment, which the court reversed.
|
|||||
| State v. Rochefort, A05-2110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err in denying appellant's postconviction challenge to a first-degree controlled substance conviction. Appellant failed to show that the outcome would have been different had his trial counsel challenged the legality of the search, the probable cause, or the night-time search warrant issued under Minn. Stat. § 626.14.
|
|||||
| Tri-Buu Cat Thiem v. Polka Dot Dairy, A06-2125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in granting lessors summary judgment in connection with their breach of contract action against the lessee; the lessee did not show that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the lessors' actions could have been characterized as terminating the lease by implication.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
