 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Meyers v. Johnson, No. 26801,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The vesting of ownership of a mobile home in the purchasers was appropriate where the former sales transaction between the seller and the purported owner did not comply with Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 700.320 and 301.210 because there was no contemporaneous delivery of a properly-endorsed certificate of title to the purported owner.
|
|||||
| Badovinatz v. Brown, No. 26741,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a premises liability case, trial court properly held that plaintiffs failed to prove existence of a dangerous condition. One of the plaintiffs, an invitee, was injured after tripping on concrete blocks on scaffold floor; however, no evidence existed from which it could be inferred that blocks were so placed that a person might not notice them.
|
|||||
| State v. Baxter, Case No. 26808,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court committed plain error in that there was no basis to determine that, pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 27.01, defendant had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his fundamental right to trial by jury; acquiescence could not be presumed, and every reasonable presumption against waiver had to be indulged by the court.
|
|||||
| White v. Little (In the Estate of Snider), No. 26870,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment revoking letters of conservatorship was reversed because the probate court had failed to follow the procedure mandated by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.560 (2000) in response to the conservator's failure to timely file an annual settlement and failure to ask for a continuance; a citation, not an order to show cause, was the statutory procedure.
|
|||||
| Wenzel v. State, No. 26938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where movant asserted a right to counsel but refused to accept a public defender in his appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, movant thereby chose to proceed pro se. Appealing pro se, he was still bound by the appellate brief requirements in Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04 and because he did not comply with them, his appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Bowers v. Hiland Dairy Co., No. 26902,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commission properly denied WC claimant's request for past and future medical treatment because even though treatment could also benefit his pre-existing conditions, it was not sufficient to show that it benefited his work injury or the pre-existing condition; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.140.1 required him to show treatment flowed from his work injury.
|
|||||
| Ross v. Everhart, No. 26730,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court erred in awarding judgment to beneficiaries in an action by a settlor's fiance for a declaration that real estate would be distributed to her from a trust free of encumbrances where the court's conclusion that indebtedness should be paid from the real estate was contrary to the principles established in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 474.450.2 (2000).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
