 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Living Trust of Johnson v. Johnson, No. 26768,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in holding a revocable trust contained an ambiguity and, therefore, erroneously applied the law in reforming the trust as the instrument's language was not patently ambiguous and did not evoke a question of who the settlor intended as beneficiaries.
|
|||||
| State v. Fields, No. 27057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed judgment denying a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 547.035 (2000) where movant did not, and could not, allege facts to warrant relief under § 547.035.4 in that identity was not an issue at trial or on appeal and where his challenge to the constitutional validity of § 547.035 was not preserved for review.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Frymire, No. 26966,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found that landowners' and their predecessors in interest adversely possessed part of their neighbor's property under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.010 as a tree line was planted and a gravel driveway laid, and the act of mowing the property for 42 years was a continuously recurring act which supported the continued claim of possession.
|
|||||
| Burdynski v. Dir. of Revenue, No. 27022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment ordering reinstatement of a driver's license was reversed where driver was given full 20 minutes, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041.4 (2000), in which to contact an attorney after requesting to speak with one, but only called his wife and continued to refuse a breath test; thus, police officer properly noted that driver refused to take the test.
|
|||||
| C.J.G. v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 27040,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a father's motion pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 74.06 was affirmed because even though a letter notifying father that his son was being taken into protective custody did not comply with Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.101.1,, the father had notice of the hearing, participated in the matter, and did not raise the lack of notice until two years later.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, No. 27193,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed an inmate's appeal from the dismissal of his petition for injunctive relief against the director of child support enforcement for lack of jurisdiction as his notice of appeal was filed without a docket fee as required by former Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 81.04(c) (now found at Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 81.04(d)).
|
|||||
| State v. Wirth, No. 27145,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the officer actions in stopping defendant's vehicle were lawful when he saw the vehicle driving so slowly that it was impeding traffic, and as he then determined that defendant was intoxicated, defendant was properly convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
