 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Meek v. Virgin, No. ED87637,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Melton v. Padgett, WD 66910,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In response to father's motion to modify visitation, trial court ruled that child's relocation was not in child's best interests. Subsequently, trial court added statutorily mandated language of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.377. Trial court erred because neither party had agreed to try issue of relocation, and issue was not properly before trial court.
|
|||||
| Meyer v. AstraZeneca Pharms., L.P., No. ED87782,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Verdict for defendant pharmaceutical company on a product liability claim was affirmed because the circuit court did not err when it instructed the jury to enter a verdict for the company if it believed the dangerous nature of propofol was not known and could not have been discovered at the time the propofol was placed in the stream of commerce.
|
|||||
| Pearson v. State, No. ED88109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Raines v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., WD 67522,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 27, 2007, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Bass, No. ED87898,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Bass, No. ED88022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, March 27, 2007, Decided , March 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Bergentine, WD 66832,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 27, 2007, Decided , March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, WD66397,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In driving while intoxicated matter, allegedly in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010.1, State's proof against defendant was insufficient because it failed to show when consumption of alcohol took place. If defendant started drinking just minutes before accident, alcohol would not have been absorbed, and defendant would not have been intoxicated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
