 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bankhead v. State, No. ED84879,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 motion for postconviction relief was properly granted where State violated his due process rights by presenting contradictory prosecutorial theories during his trial and prosecution of two codefendants. State's evidence proved complicity of only two individuals in crimes, however, three were charged and convicted.
|
|||||
| Canady v. Canady, No. 26766,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was a lack of competent and substantial evidence for the trial court's determinations of the value of the marital residence at the time of the marriage and at dissolution; the amount of insurance coverage was not in and of itself competent evidence of the home's fair market value.
|
|||||
| Carter v. State, No. SC87074,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 post-conviction motion was wrongly dismissed as untimely where he had timely filed it, although in the incorrect venue, and where he corrected the lack of signature on the motion, required by Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.03, promptly after being notified of its absence.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Rapert, WD 65483,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, January 10, 2006, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Diekhoff v. State, WD 64598,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, January 10, 2006, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ethetton v. Dir. of Revenue, No. 26614,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041, there was sufficient evidence to find that the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the driver had driven a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition; therefore, the trial court erred when it overturned the Missouri Director of Revenue's decision to revoke the driver's license.
|
|||||
| Flores v. State, No. ED86069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for postconviction relief as to her kidnapping convictions as her actions in removing, out of affection, her own children from the custody of the department of family services was excluded from the purview of the kidnapping statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.110.
|
|||||
| Friedlund v. Friedlund, WD 64639, WD 64696,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, January 10, 2006, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a trial court's judgment modifying a prior decree of dissolution, where the appellate court concluded that the judgment was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appeared.
|
|||||
| Gordon v. City of St. Louis, No. ED85942,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where children did not file a notice of appeal within 10 days after the date the judgment setting aside a default against an insurer on their post-judgment petition for equitable garnishment became final, their appeal of that judgment was untimely under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 81.04(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
