Opinion handed down July 31, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that the Missouri Attorney General’s Office could petition to commit a prisoner to the Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator, regardless of the reasons for the prisoner’s present incarceration.[1]
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Steven Crenshaw v. State of Missouri[1]
Opinion handed down July 31, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Crenshaw v. State, The Missouri Supreme Court expanded on its rule that if a movant is abandoned by counsel the appropriate remedy is to return the movant to where he or she would have been absent the abandonment.[2] Also, the Court held that trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to subpoena a witness if counsel reasonably believes that the witness will testify without a subpoena.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Crenshaw v. State, The Missouri Supreme Court expanded on its rule that if a movant is abandoned by counsel the appropriate remedy is to return the movant to where he or she would have been absent the abandonment.[2] Also, the Court held that trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to subpoena a witness if counsel reasonably believes that the witness will testify without a subpoena.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Jarrett v. Jones[1]
Opinion handed down July 29, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that a truck driver who crashed into a negligent driver and allegedly suffered emotional distress qualified as a “direct victim.” The truck driver had witnessed the body of the deceased daughter of the negligent driver he crashed into. The Court rejected the application of the stricter “zone of danger test” applicable to bystanders, and thus the truck driver was not barred from recovering damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that a truck driver who crashed into a negligent driver and allegedly suffered emotional distress qualified as a “direct victim.” The truck driver had witnessed the body of the deceased daughter of the negligent driver he crashed into. The Court rejected the application of the stricter “zone of danger test” applicable to bystanders, and thus the truck driver was not barred from recovering damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.[1]
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
In Re: Mark Belz[1]
Opinion handed down July 15, 2008
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that with significant mitigating factors a lawyer who intentionally misappropriates client funds may be sanctioned by indefinite suspension instead of automatic disbarment.[1] The Office of the Chief Disciplinary Council (OCDC) argued that Missouri precedent held that disbarment was the only sanction justified in a misappropriation case. The Court rejected the argument, reasoning that mitigating factors may be considered in determining appropriate punishment.[2]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Missouri Supreme Court held that with significant mitigating factors a lawyer who intentionally misappropriates client funds may be sanctioned by indefinite suspension instead of automatic disbarment.[1] The Office of the Chief Disciplinary Council (OCDC) argued that Missouri precedent held that disbarment was the only sanction justified in a misappropriation case. The Court rejected the argument, reasoning that mitigating factors may be considered in determining appropriate punishment.[2]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)