|
| |
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 27, 2007
|
| |
Coffman v. Coffman, WD 66204,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, February 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court erred in marital dissolution action in finding that all of husband's pension benefits were meant to serve as deferred compensation and were, therefore, entirely a marital asset where benefit payments received by him up until he turned 65 years old were meant to replace his earnings due to his disability and were, therefore, nonmarital asset.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Grass v. State, Nos. ED87708, ED87751, ED87792, & ED87816,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: A court erred in granting a patient's petition for conditional release because an expert did not testify that the patient was not now and was not likely in the reasonable future to commit another violent crime against another person because of mental illness as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.040.20(1); the court misinterpreted the testimony.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Harris v. Westin Mgmt. Co. E., No. ED88250,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: When a passenger was injured on his way to work, passenger was not at work when accident occurred; however, matter was transferred to supreme court, pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 83.02, because issue remained regarding circuit court's authority to determine its own jurisdiction in cases of workers' compensation exclusivity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
