 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Smith v. Dominion Props., No. ED87612,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant's appeal was dismissed because the decision denying unemployment benefits became final 10 days after it was mailed to the claimant on December 30, 2005, and his notice of appeal was due 20 days after that, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 288.200.2, 288.210, and 288.240 (2000), but his notice of appeal was not filed until February 1, 2006.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Petti v. Goodwin-Raftery, No. ED86886,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of city residents' petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment against city clerk and city was affirmed because, contrary to the residents' assertion, Mo. Const. art. III, § 52(a), did not grant an unlimited right to referendum and because under the city charter, the clerk could not take any action with respect to the petition.
|
|||||
| State v. Grondman, WD64717,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 25, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike two venirepersons for cause because neither of the prospective jurors was rehabilitated after indicating that they would consider defendant's failure to testify as evidence of his guilt. Based on their voir dire responses, the two venirepersons were not qualified as fair and impartial jurors.
|
|||||
| State v. Herd, No. 26900,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of stealing in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030 (2000) was affirmed, where although the only direct evidence was a videotape of her pocketing $ 85 from a store's cash register, the strong circumstantial evidence indicated that she had been entering false "voids" and taking the difference over a period of many months.
|
|||||
| State v. Randall, No. ED86311,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Steward, No. ED86228,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
