|
| |
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 Courts -
Missouri - February 21, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
McCallum v. McCallum, No. ED85653,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where there was substantial evidence that the depletion of two accounts was the result, not of market fluctuation, but of a husband's secreting or squandering of assets in anticipation of dissolution, the trial court did not err in ordering the husband to pay the wife a large sum as reimbursement for money due under their dissolution judgment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nguyen v. State, WD 64795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Denial of defendant's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 motion was affirmed because there was a factual basis for the plea, when defendant's plea was made freely, voluntarily, intelligently and unequivocally, and defendant chose to make an Alford plea to accept the sentence while not admitting that any shot he fired actually hit either victim.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
St. Charles County v. "A Joint Bd. or Comm'n", No. ED85506,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to a county in community action board's breach of contract action because agreement was unenforceable and thus county could not be held liable. County was twelfth county to enter into an agreement to administer housing applications; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.010 authorized only 10 counties to enter into an agreement.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|