 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bottorff v. Bottorff, No. 27587,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in finding presumed child support amount in Mo. Civ. P. Form 14 was justified; inter alia, Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 88.01 did not support father's mechanical and self-serving definition of "ability to pay" and he presented no evidence of amount by which his support costs exceeded the "self-support reserve" attributed to his income level.
|
|||||
| Thorson v. Connelly, No. 27873,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, May 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant grandmother did not seek to be appointed as plaintiff ad litem until after respondents' motions for summary judgment were filed and the statute of limitations had run, the trial court did not err in its determination that the grandmother did not have standing to sue for the wrongful death of her granddaughter.
|
|||||
| Clayton v. Langco Tool & Plastics, Inc., No. 28145,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of claimant's application for workers' compensation benefits was affirmed because the Commission found that claimant's testimony (the sole source of proof that a work related accident occurred), was not credible; the credibility of testimony was solely within the purview of the Commission, to which a reviewing court had to defer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
