 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mitchell v. State, No. ED86401,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 23, 2006, Decided , May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order dismissing a motion for postconviction relief was reversed and remanded where the appellate court was unable to review the transcript to determine whether the motion court erred, the motion court failed to provide any findings of fact or conclusions of law, and as a result, there was nothing left for a meaningful appellate review.
|
|||||
| Prewitt v. State, WD65320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The motion court did not err in concluding that defendant was not entitled to relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 where his claim did not involve a probation revocation or related assertion that sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to execute his sentence. Defendant had to contest his probation denial through an appropriate writ.
|
|||||
| Sheppard v. East, Nos. ED86415 & ED86472,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of a home seller was proper in an action brought by buyers who alleged that the seller made misrepresentations in a disclosure statement because the buyers did not prove reliance or that the representation was false. Moreover, the finding that the seller did not falsify information was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Arnold, WD 65346,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Cobb, WD 65269,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Pruitt, No. ED85993,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it sentenced defendant for two "class A" felonies based solely on her status as a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender when the underlying Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.202 possession offenses with which she was charged and found guilty of were classified by statute as "class C" felonies.
|
|||||
| State v. Rawlings, WD 65074,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Walkup, WD63949,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's first degree murder conviction was reversed and remanded because the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony (sole defense witness at trial) was not harmless, as it could have provided a medical basis for the jury to reject the first-degree murder charge and convict defendant on the lesser charge of second-degree murder.
|
|||||
| State v. Wells, No. ED86060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, May 23, 2006, Opinion 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. |
