 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sorrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. ED84268-01,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employee's action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.S. § 51 et seq., against his employer for injuries sustained while driving a truck for the employer, even if the causation standards contained in the instructions were improper, any error was harmless as the evidence of his negligence could only have been a "direct" cause.
|
|||||
| State v. Burton, No. ED87799,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a possession of a controlled substance drug paraphernalia case, the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's objection to certain remarks during closing argument as the prosecutor's comments were permissible in that the prosecutor appealed to the jury to uphold the law and to protect the community from the danger of drugs.
|
|||||
| State v. Lucas, No. 27779,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance to permit him time to locate an expert that would counter testimony of the State's witness concerning the allegation that defendant had intercourse with the alleged victim, because defendant had been afforded ample time to prepare for trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Shoemaker, No. ED88405,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 10, 2007, Decided , April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. White, WD65067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second-degree murder and armed criminal action convictions were reversed as the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the use of force in self-defense where the victim's relentless pursuit and his struggle over the loaded weapon left defendant in the position of having to shoot first or risk being shot.
|
|||||
| Truss v. Lutheran High Sch. Ass'n , No. ED89257,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Williams v. Silvola, WD 66055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding ambiguous "subject to the law of the state of the occurrence" language contained in an insured's seven policies. Thus, although the insured resided in Kansas and the accident for which insured sought UM coverage occurred in Missouri, ambiguities were construed in insured's favor to allow her to stack coverage.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
