 |
|
 |
|
|
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 ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Miller, No. 27188,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of the circuit court in a paternity action, finding that appellant was the natural father of a minor child, was affirmed because the blood tests of appellant and his identical twin produced competing presumptions of paternity which cancelled each other out, relegating the trier of fact to other evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Fears, No. 27685,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for two counts of child molestation in the first degree in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.067 were appropriate because each victim's testimony regarding sexual contact corroborated the testimony of the other victim, thus permitting a reasonable juror to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Kinner v. Scott, Nos. 27327 and 27332, Consolidated,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother sought to modify custody under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.410 because the father had punished one of their children excessively, the motion was properly denied because ample evidence supported the finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the father's custody; attorney's fees were improperly awarded.
|
|||||
| State v. Still, No. 27254,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not commit plain error under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 30.20 by allowing the State to elicit testimony during the victims' mother direct examination that two years earlier defendant had held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her because the testimony was cumulative of other testimony.
|
|||||
| Keller v. Keller, No. 27260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's argument that the trial court overstated his income for purposes of calculating presumed child support was without merit because it was permissible for the circuit court to include funds father chose to withdraw in the form of loans, together with his designated salary, as gross income in calculating presumed child support.
|
|||||
| R.P.C. v. Wright County Juvenile Office , No. 27790,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of appellant parents' parental rights on grounds of abandonment was affirmed, where parents first tried to surrender parental rights to a relative, and after that failed, parents utterly ignored child for another one and one-half years (parents provided no financial support and failed to even try to contact the child during that time).
|
|||||
| State v. Poole, No. 27663,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's driving while intoxicated conviction was affirmed; the amount of the officer's education in the particular field of horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) testing, and any lack of medical training, went to the weight of his testimony that defendant's blindness in one eye did not affect his performance on the test, not to its admissibility.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
