 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Livingston v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., No. ED86545,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even as a pro se appellant, plaintiff was required to comply with Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04, and because plaintiff's brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04 to such an extent that his appeal was unreviewable, the court dismissed his appeal.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. State, No. ED86174,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Natalini v. Little, No. 26958,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deceased patient's heirs' wrongful death suit was barred by Kansas statute of limitations, as applied under borrowing statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190, because heirs' damages originated in Kansas where the patient lived when his cancer became incurable, and not where malpractice occurred in Missouri; thus summary judgment for doctor was proper.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. BSC, Inc., WD65802,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Missouri Labor and Industrial Commission erred in ruling that the "last exposure" rule of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.063 (2000) applied to insulate the employee's first employer from responsibility for his occupational disease as there was medical testimony attributing a portion of the employee's disability to the work that he did for the last employer.
|
|||||
| Reprod. Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Nixon, No. SC86768,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.039 (2003) did not violate the Missouri Constitution; its informed consent provisions regarding abortions were not vague and a 24-hour waiting period, before terminating a pregnancy, did not violate the rights to due process in Mo. Const. art. I, §§ 2 and 10.
|
|||||
| Scrivener Oil Co. v. Div. of Empl. Sec., No. 27043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no evidence to support the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's finding that an unemployment compensation claimant was not told to move a store display, the case was remanded to determine whether claimant's failure to move the display was willful or intentional as contemplated by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.050.2 (2000).
|
|||||
| Seibert v. State, No. 26956,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an inmate's motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 was affirmed because the inmate failed to establish that the judge had relied on evidence admitted through judicial notice in convicting him, or that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to raise the issue of admissibility of the evidence on appeal.
|
|||||
| Shahab v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., No. ED86375,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sims v. State, WD 65190,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Order 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. |
