 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Forde v. Forde, No. ED85920,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that the father was able to pay the children's educational expenses was not an abuse of discretion in light of the substantial evidence of the father's spending, because although the father claimed only approximately $6,000 in taxable income in 2002, he spent nearly $200,000 from his credit cards and checking accounts.
|
|||||
| Gilles v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., WD 65864,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prison inmate's challenge to the department of corrections' determination regarding probation eligibility, summary judgment in favor of the department was proper as the inmate had three or more previous prison commitments for DWI under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 558.019.2, requiring him to serve a minimum prison term of 80 percent of his sentence.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, No. ED86029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On appeal from denial of a Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 post-conviction relief motion, limited remand was necessary for trial court to correct the written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of sentence where the oral pronouncement indicated that movant was a predatory sexual offender, but written judgment indicated he was a "persistent" offender.
|
|||||
| Hensel v. Am. Air Network, Inc., No. SC87206,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney not authorized to practice law in Missouri was the only person to sign a petition, plaintiffs did not forfeit their right of action because petition was presented for filing by a Missouri attorney and timely actions were taken to correct the mistake, Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.03(a), summary judgment in favor of defendants was erroneous.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of L.C. v. L.C., WD 65815,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 25, 2006, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jennings v. Station Casino St. Charles, No. ED86771,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission erred by affirming an ALJ's denial of permanent total disability benefits because the performance of a medically necessary discogram under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.140 (2000) caused an infection that aggravated an original work-related back injury.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. St. Louis Parking Co., No. ED87698,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court dismissed an employee's appeal of an order denying her claim for unemployment compensation benefits where the employee's notice of appeal was untimely under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.210 (2000). Because the employee's appeal was untimely, the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
|
|||||
| Lafayette v. Courtney, WD65153, Consolidated with WD65202,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an owner's action against his friend seeking the return of certain personal items, while the trial judge determined that the owner was entitled to possession of the items, the judgment failed to comply with Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 99.12 as the trial judge failed to determine the value of these items.
|
|||||
| Lallier v. Lallier, No. ED86929,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve parties' marriage, even though process server's affidavit did not state time and place of service, because letter attached to and filed with affidavit stated information. Under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 54.20(b)(1), letter was sufficient "other evidence" to show that service on father had been properly made.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
