 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atkinson v. Atkinson, No. ED86857,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing a mother's motion seeking reimbursement from the father for 50 percent of their children's uninsured medical expenses as the motion properly pled a cause of action under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 454.633.3, and the trial court had previously entered a consent judgment specifically addressing these expenses.
|
|||||
| Bogart v. Dir. of Revenue, WD 65384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a trial court's ruling that reinstated an individual's driving privileges because Missouri's appellate courts had ruled that a driver's wrongful failure to blow until told to stop constituted refusal to take a breath test under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041.
|
|||||
| Consol. Elec. & Mechanicals, Inc. v. Schuerman, No. ED86492,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of an individual's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was affirmed because where the individual had only sold her professional baseball season tickets to a company, and had not been in the state since 1999, there were insufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process under U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
|
|||||
| First Baptist Church of Ellisville v. Reagan, No. ED85160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Griffin v. State, No. ED85465,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying an inmate's motion pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 as the inmate was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to show whether his belief that the State did not have to prove "serious physical injury" to convict him under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.081 was advanced or promoted by his plea counsel.
|
|||||
| Hallquist v. Smith, No. ED86372,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a police officer's negligent entrustment action when the parent's 18-year-old son crashed into the officer's vehicle while intoxicated, because there was evidence that despite the son's driving history his parents allowed him to use the vehicle, the officer raised an inference of implied permission sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, No. 26690,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's motion pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 as the inmate could not establish that his postconviction counsel's failure to direct the court's attention to a jury instruction that was not the law at the time of the inmate's conviction constituted abandonment of his postconviction claim.
|
|||||
| Hoehn v. Lakenan Ins. Agency, No. ED86705,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Holland v. State, No. ED86118,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 7, 2006, 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. |
