 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Ream, No. 27562,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's use at trial of defendant's "unemployed" book-in response did not violate his rights under U.S. Const. amend. V where limited mention of his unemployment was neither crucial to nor did it bear heavily upon finding of guilt. Given overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted proof of his guilt, mention of his unemployment was not prejudicial.
|
|||||
| State v. Hoy, No. 27677,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to show that defendant operated a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010 because he admitted to taking pain and sleep medications before the accident and scientific tests showed the presence of hydrocodone and zolpidem in defendant's system.
|
|||||
| State v. Wheeler, No. 27823,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for statutory rape in the second degree in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.034 was appropriate because it was clear that the jury was instructed as to defendant's right not to testify at trial. Additionally, the comment made by the State regarding defendant's failure to testify was inadvertent, brief, and isolated.
|
|||||
| Andersen v. Boggs, No. 27614,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss a passenger's appeal from defense verdict in a traffic accident personal injury case was granted because passenger failed to comply with Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04 requirements. Neither text of points raised nor argument portion of passenger's brief identified a particular part of the record to which the complaints were directed.
|
|||||
| English v. Empire Dist. Elec. Co., No. 27411,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest to respondent worker in a negligence action, as the worker did not plead facts sufficient to support such an award, and the worker's demand letter did not comply with the requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.040.2 (2002), that the demand be sent by certified mail.
|
|||||
| In re L.N.D., No. 27910,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment terminating father's parental rights based on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447.4(2)(d) was affirmed because record provided ample evidence supporting finding that father failed to provide financial support, visit, or communicate with child. His conduct began before his parole was revoked; incarceration did not relieve him of his parental duties.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Williams, No. 27836,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, April 23, 2007, Handed Down
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in denying a mother's request to relocate with her minor child to Kansas, approximately 55 miles from her home in Missouri, where the mother had been solely financially responsible for the child and had clearly been more than cooperative to ensure that the father had significant time with the child.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
