 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bressler v. Wooten Co., L.L.C., No. 27842,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision denying a claimant's application for unemployment benefits was affirmed because there was substantial evidence supporting the determination that the claimant was fired for misconduct under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.030.1. There was evidence that the claimant was not accurate about time away and in her reimbursement requests.
|
|||||
| Jerry Bennett Masonry Contr., Inc. v. Crossland Constr. Co., No. 27574,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prejudgment interest was awarded pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.020 in a suit between a contractor and subcontractor related to work performed on project for school district. Trial court chose an incorrect date to start prejudgment interest calculation because start date was when contractor was fully entitled to money from school district.
|
|||||
| Butler County Juvenile Office v. J.B. (In the Interest of J.B.), Nos. 27833 and 27834,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a father was convicted of a felony violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. ch. 566 for child molestation, the trial court did not err by terminating the father's parental rights to his children pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447.4(4). Terminating his parental rights was in the best interests of the children pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447.6.
|
|||||
| Petersen v. Petersen, Nos. 27425 and 27426, Consolidated,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an ex-husband sought to reduce his maintenance obligation under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.370.1 due to reduced income from the company he owned, substantial evidence did not support the finding that his income in 2004 was approximately $ 40,000, because there was no information as to his company's financial condition for 2004.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. State, No. 27405,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 motion for postconviction relief was proper because the failure to call various witnesses was not ineffective on the part of his counsel. The testimonies would have not provided the inmate with a viable defense or unqualifiedly supported him.
|
|||||
| Goad v. Ulrich, No. 27544,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a property owner's action against his neighbors seeking to quiet title to and eject the neighbors from land, the trial court erred in defining the boundaries of the parties' lots by the initial plat rather than a subsequently filed, amended plat as the amended plat was recorded and included the amended sizes and dimensions of both parties' lots.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. Pierce, No. 27585,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marital dissolution action, the designation of the termination of the wife's maintenance as non-modifiable was inappropriate because Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.370 provided no basis to designate a judgment modifying maintenance as either modifiable or non-modifiable. Thus, a remand to the trial court was necessary for the correction of that error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
