|
| |
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 22 - February 26, 2007
|
| |
Berry v. State, No. 27698,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: After defendant pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and second degree assault, denial of defendant's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel was proper as he waived all non-jurisdictional defects, defenses, and errors, when he entered a knowing and voluntary plea.
|
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Paulson, No. 27633,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of statutory rape and statutory sodomy, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 566.032.1, 566.062.1, because, inter alia, (1) he stuck his sexual organ inside her privates; (2) he put his sexual organ inside her behind; (3) he made her rub his sexual organ until he ejaculated; and (4) he made her suck on his sexual organ.
|
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Wright, No. 27430,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a sodomy case, plain error under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 30.20 was not shown by a trial court's failure to act sua sponte and grant a mistrial where an investigator commented on the credibility of a victim because the response was brief, there was no elaboration, the jury was instructed of its role, and an objection and ruling were made before the jury.
|
|
| |
Dixon v. Stoam Indus., No. 27407,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.030.1(24), the employee's refusal to comply with a lawful and reasonable directive from his supervisor constituted misconduct, and the employee knew or should have known that the supervisor was his supervisor; thus, the employee was disqualified for waiting-week credit and benefits, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.050.2.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|