 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Donovan v. Donovan, WD 65515,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance to a wife under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335.1 because there was substantial evidence that the wife could not work full-time due to back pain and that, because she had left the workforce for 12 years to care for children, she was unable to support herself through appropriate employment.
|
|||||
| Franken v. Franken, WD 65620,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment setting aside a prior order that a settlement agreement was not unconscionable was reversed because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to set aside its prior order under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 74.06 since it was not void, and the trial court was obligated by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 425.325.2 to distribute an annuity according to the settlement.
|
|||||
| Hallquist v. Midden, No. ED86836,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a police officer's claims against a driver, who had been arrested for driving drunk, for injuries caused when another driver rear-ended the officer's vehicle, was affirmed because the injury to the police officer was not a foreseeable consequence of driving drunk, and thus the driver owed no duty to the officer.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Treasurer, No. ED87083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed a Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission decision, based on its interpretation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.220.4 (2000), that delayed the Second Injury Fund's liability for a claimant's permanent total disability benefits; the employer's prior obligations did not all have to be expended before any payments by Fund were made.
|
|||||
| Hickam v. State, WD 65545,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006 , Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Honer v. Treasurer of Mo., No. ED87025,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission incorrectly interpreted and applied Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.220.4 (2000) to determine the timing of compensation payments to an injured employee by the Second Injury Fund, resulting in a reduction of such payments, because § 287.220.4 was applicable only to employers and not to the Fund.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, No. ED86496,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Luepker v. Luepker, No. ED86627,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McGrath v. Bowen, No. ED86613,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in issuing an order of protection under the Adult Abuse Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 455.010-455.085, based on evidence that respondent was stalking petitioner's minor child and not petitioner; petitioner had adduced no evidence that he was a victim of stalking entitled to an order of protection against respondent under the Act.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
