 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bryant v. Color Art Printing, No. ED88749,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cook v. State, No. ED88505,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 10, 2007, Decided , April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Crenshaw v. State, No. ED88500,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Movant's appeal from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief was dismissed; because a failure to file a timely notice of appeal was not abandonment of post-conviction counsel, the motion court had no authority for reopening movant's proceedings, and providing movant with additional time to file a "timely" notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| DeClue v. State, No. 27866,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 motion was properly denied as movant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to locate a witness was without merit because movant failed to prove that the witness's testimony would have produced a viable defense because four government witnesses testified to the intensive involvement of movant in a murder.
|
|||||
| Estate of Shaw v. McKown, WD66590,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of devisees' motion under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.803 for repayment of expenditures that they made for repairs on property devised to them was appropriate because the devisees had physical possession of the property during the entire estate administration and the representative never acted to take possession of the property.
|
|||||
| Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Updegraff, WD 66331,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lender's petition for a deficiency judgment against a borrower failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.556.1 because the petition failed to sufficiently allege compliance with the provisions of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.9-610(b); a general allegation as to conditions precedent was insufficient.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Brown, No. 27759,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants moved to enforce a settlement agreement without offering any testimony or evidence to support their unverified motion, the trial court erred by granting the motion. Defendants did not show by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence they were entitled to the relief granted.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Roy's Transmission, No. ED87921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kimberlin v. Dull, WD 66741,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Decided , April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's judgment was affirmed. The instant court declined to interpret the trust in a manner that compelled a useless act. Because the trust was silent on amendment after the death of one of the grantors and allowed revocation, the instant court interpreted the trust to permit amendment after the death of one of the grantors.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
