|
| |
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 13, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Jamison v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Div. of Family Servs., SC87360,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Missouri Child Abuse Act violated due process rights of alleged perpetrators under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 and Mo. Const. art. I, § 10, because Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 210.110, 210.152 allowed their names to be listed in Central Registry before notice and pre-deprivation finding of abuse or neglect at which preponderance of evidence standard applied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Nagaragadde v. Pandurangi, WD66276,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a homeowner's failure to extinguish a flame on a oil lamp used for prayer was an affirmative act of negligence, rather than a passive condition of a home, a trial court did not err by instructing the jury on simple negligence under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 70.02(a), as opposed to premises liability, since the evidence supported the negligence claim.
|
|
| |
Neske v. City of St. Louis, No. SC87976, No. SC87977,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court properly found that city had to pay entire amounts certified by Police Retirement System and Firemen's Retirement System as there was no Hancock Amendment, Mo. Const. art. X, § 21 violation as there was no new or increased activity required of the city, no conflict with Mo. Const. art. VI, § 26(a), and lesser payments were inadequate.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
