text rule in Minnesota

2026Instead, we have more generally described that “[t]he test for granting a motion for a directed verdict is whether the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the jury’s determination, after viewing the evidence and all resulting inferences in favor of the state.” State v. Slaughter, 691 N.W.2d 70 , 74–75 (Minn. 2005).

2016If the rule is not ambiguous, “we construe the rule according to the common and approved usage of its words and phrases and do not disregard the rule’s plain meaning to pursue its spirit.” Troyer, 806 N.W.2d at 24 . 8 Turning to the text of the rule, “work under the contract” generally means: all construction activities associated with the public works project, including any required hauling activities on the site of or to or from a public works project and work conducted pursuant to a contract . . . regardless of whether the construction activity or work is performed by the prime contractor,

1991Id. [3] Another, of course, is the situation exemplified by Andries , where an applicant in an out-state community does not have access to a local judge but must travel many miles to obtain a warrant. [4] In view of this decision and in view of our conclusion that defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the procedures used, we need not and do not address the state's contention that this court should follow the so-called good faith exception to the exclusionary rule adopted and applied by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82

1991Id. [3] Another, of course, is the situation exemplified by Andries , where an applicant in an out-state community does not have access to a local judge but must travel many miles to obtain a warrant. [4] In view of this decision and in view of our conclusion that defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the procedures used, we need not and do not address the state's contention that this court should follow the so-called good faith exception to the exclusionary rule adopted and applied by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82

1991Id. [3] Another, of course, is the situation exemplified by Andries , where an applicant in an out-state community does not have access to a local judge but must travel many miles to obtain a warrant. [4] In view of this decision and in view of our conclusion that defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the procedures used, we need not and do not address the state's contention that this court should follow the so-called good faith exception to the exclusionary rule adopted and applied by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82

1980The employee was also cited under a regulation issued pursuant to that statute requiring “that employees ‘avoid any action .. . which might result in, or create the appearance of . .. [a]ffecting adversely the confidence of the pub-lie in the integrity of [OEO and] the Government,’ and that employees not ‘engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful or other conduct prejudicial to the Government.’ ’’ Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. at 142 , 94 S.Ct. at 1638 . 12 .

1980The employee was also cited under a regulation issued pursuant to that statute requiring “that employees ‘avoid any action .. . which might result in, or create the appearance of . .. [a]ffecting adversely the confidence of the pub-lie in the integrity of [OEO and] the Government,’ and that employees not ‘engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful or other conduct prejudicial to the Government.’ ’’ Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. at 142 , 94 S.Ct. at 1638 . 12 .