 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gage v. Mo. Gaming Comm'n, WD64935 Consolidated with WD64936,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In casino employees' challenge to the revocation of their occupational gaming licenses when they fabricated a story about an incident involving a security camera's lens being covered, regardless of whether the Commission had authority to regulate the camera, it had jurisdiction over the employees' conduct under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 313.812.14.
|
|||||
| Glasgow Enters., Inc. v. Bowers, No. ED87131,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 30, 2006, Decided , May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to a purchaser in a quiet title action under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 140.330 was affirmed because the purchaser did not violate Mo. Rev. Stat. § 140.405 in not sending the buyer and her mortgagee a notice when they had no interest in a property the purchaser acquired at a delinquent tax sale at the time notice was required.
|
|||||
| Hayes v. Show Me Believers, Inc., No. SC87264,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a football player's suit alleging that his employer discharged him in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780 after discovering that player had filed a workers' compensation claim against his former employer, circuit court erred in finding that § 287.780 applied only in cases where discharge stemmed from filing a claim against current employer.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. State, ED86359,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a movant's appeal from the denial of his Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 postconviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing was appropriate because the appellate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction since the movant failed to sign his pro se Rule 24.035 motion.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Kendrick, No. ED87812,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with molesting his granddaughter, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering his daughter to testify about his alleged molestation of her when she was a minor as she invoked her self-incrimination privilege under Mo. Const. art. I, § 19, and the State failed to show that her answers would not incriminate her.
|
|||||
| McMillen v. State, No. WD65878,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, May 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed appeal of the denial of appellant's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct void judgment or sentence because appellant's brief failed to articulate a complete understandable legal point, legal authority, and analytical argument, as required by Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04, for the court to understand his constitutional claims.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Behlmann, No. ED87018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Overall v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. ED87201,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Reid v. State, No. ED86566,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of the movant's Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing was inappropriate in part because he stated that but for counsel's assurance that he could get paroled as early as the 18 month point, he would have rejected pleading guilty and insisted on proceeding to trial. Thus, he satisfied the third requirement for a hearing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
