|
| |
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 - March 6, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Brandes v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. ED89225,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Claimant's appeal of decision of the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits and waiting week credit, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.210, because her notice of appeal was untimely, as it was received five days after it was due.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Colmo v. Colmo, No. ED87962,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 6, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment ordering the mother to pay for the costs of supervised visits between the father and the child, because the trial court took no evidence as to the respective ability of the parties to pay for the expenses, the reasonableness of the charges, or the continuing need for supervised visits.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Culley v. Royal Oaks Chrysler Jeep, Inc., No. ED88528,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Claimant's appellate brief after denial of worker's compensation benefits was dismissed for violating Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04(c), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (i); inter alia, appellate court could not decipher claimant's statement of facts to determine pertinent facts of appeal and points relied on did not identify rule of law that should have been applied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
