 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haggard v. Div. of Empl. Sec., WD 66738, 66739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decisions rendered by the appeals tribunal were null and void and the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission was without jurisdiction over the appeals, because the Missouri Division of Employment Security was not permitted by Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 5.29(c) to be represented in an employment security proceeding by a managerial employee.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. State, WD 66620,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| James v. State, WD 66818,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| James v. State, WD 66774,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was entitled to post-conviction relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.15 because trial counsel was ineffective in failing to strike a venireperson for cause after she indicated that she would draw an adverse inference from a criminal defendant's failure to testify in his own defense and counsel's decision was not a matter of trial strategy.
|
|||||
| K.R.P. v. Penyweit, WD 66003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In father's request for a declaration of paternity and sole custody of child, trial court erred in excluding evidence of mother's abuse of father because trial court misapplied Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.375.2(6). Father did not need to show child witnessed alleged abuse. Error was not harmless because evidence's exclusion could have affected outcome.
|
|||||
| Lyles v. Robert Half Corp., No. ED88411,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where claimant appealed the denial of unemployment benefits, her appellate briefs failed to properly set out the legal bases for reversal and did not identify the issues being raised on appeal. The briefs failed to comply with the requirements of Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04 and were inadequate to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Pescado Loco, L.L.C. v. Chesterfield Ctr. Corp., No. ED88657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 24, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Randolph v. Mo. Hwys. & Transp. Comm'n, WD 66269 (Consolidated with WD 66289),
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In property owners' inverse condemnation action against the highways and transportation commission, dismissal of their personal property claims was proper as the statute of limitations under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4) applied; and even with successive floods, the cause of action accrued when the cause of the damages was capable of ascertainment.
|
|||||
| Rowe v. Hayes, WD 66475,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 24, 2007, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a matter arising out of a contract for the sale of real property, trial court did not err in entering judgment for a buyer, with the exception of a bona fide purchaser, and against sellers of the property because the buyer neither repudiated nor abandoned the parties' contract.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
