 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Livingston, WD 64677,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for murder in the first degree and armed criminal action were improper because the State's reason for the striking of an African-American venireperson lacked plausibility. Although no other venireperson had been at the bowling on a Sunday night, that distinction was pretextual in regard to the African-American venireperson.
|
|||||
| State v. Silvers, WD 66450,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, January 30, 2007, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Wilson, WD 65925,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, January 30, 2007, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Stewart, No. ED87811,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, January 30, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's action to modify child support had to be dismissed because, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 454.867(a)(1), Missouri courts had no subject matter jurisdiction over motions to modify support orders when neither the father, mother, nor the affected child resided in Missouri.
|
|||||
| Verni v. Cleveland Chiropractic College, No. SC87565,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: College student was not entitled to third-party beneficiary status under contract between the college and profess because the contract did not directly and clearly express the intent to benefit the student or any class of which he claimed to be a member. Student did not make a submissible case of fraudulent misrepresentation against the college.
|
|||||
| Westfall v. State, No. ED87592,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
