 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brooks v. State, No. 27682,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing, but resentencing had not yet occurred, there was no final judgment in the underlying criminal case that movant could contest in a post-conviction action; thus, movant's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Greene County Juvenile Office v. P.A.W. (In the Interest of K.A.W.), No. 27721,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of the father's parental rights was proper under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447.4(3) because, in failing to comply with his treatment plan and in failing to follow the recommendation of the doctor, the father was unable to rectify conditions of a potentially harmful nature, which included anger control problems and domestic violence.
|
|||||
| Vanzandt v. State, Nos. 27536 and 27538 Consolidated,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 motion was properly denied because plea counsel's testimony that he explained the five-year cap aspect of the plea agreement, and the plea court's own pointed warning to appellant, provided ample support for the determination that appellant understood the range of punishment available if he violated probation.
|
|||||
| Zummo v. Dir. of Revenue, No. 27442,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Setting aside the Director of Revenue's revocation of the driver's driving privileges was improper under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.020.1(1) because the driver refused to submit to a breath test and the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was intoxicated based on the driver's erratic operation, glassy eyes, and the odor of alcohol.
|
|||||
| Bolin v. Dir. of Revenue, No. 27551,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly upheld the director of revenue's suspension of a driver's operating license as the director made its prima facie case under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.505 with the unchallenged testimony of officers regarding breath test results and the conformity to proper procedures used in acquiring them.
|
|||||
| Carollo v. State, Case Number: 27848,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 was affirmed because the trial court did not err in denying without an evidentiary hearing the movant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, when issues of parole were not for the jury's consideration.
|
|||||
| McLaughlin v. Griffith , No. 27679,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted a doctor's motion for directed verdict in a patient's medical negligence suit for allegedly performing an unnecessary medical procedure as the patient's expert never established the standard of care in Mo. Approved Instructions No. 11.06, and whether the procedure was appropriate could not be left to lay testimony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
