Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

In Re: Carl Greeno, State of Missouri, Respondent v. Carl Greeno, Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Carl Greeno

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: In Re: Carl Greeno, State of Missouri, Respondent v. Carl Greeno, Appellant. Case Number: 54473 Handdown Date: 02/10/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Callaway County, Hon. Patrick A. Horner Counsel for Appellant: James C. Dowling Counsel for Respondent: Hugh Marshall Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Spinden, P.J., Stith and Smith, JJ. Opinion: Order Carl H. Greeno appeals the circuit court's judgment denying his application for conditional release from the Missouri Department of Mental Health, filed pursuant to Section 552.040, RSMo 1994. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.

Injured in a similar issue?

Call now or send the claim details with this opinion context preserved.

Read The Medical Malpractice GuideGuide
Personal Injurymajority12,101 words
Read opinion