Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Orders Pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and/or 84.16(b)

Decision date: UnknownWD69092

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.

Criminal Law
Discuss a Similar Criminal Law Matter(314) 710-2740
View Original on courts.mo.gov

Opinion

OF APRIL 7, 2009 WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

WD69092 James A. Hill vs. State of Missouri WD69468 James Henderson vs. State of Missouri WD70225 In the Interest of: L.L. and R.D., Juvenile Officer vs. L.L. (Father) ------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25 (b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

WD69086 State of Missouri vs. Dominic V. Burton WD69087 State of Missouri vs. Charles Mahone WD69261 State of Missouri vs. Edward E. Williams WD69291 State of Missouri vs. Steven W. Francis ------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830

remanded

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.

Call About This ClaimAsk About This Claim
Read The Medical Malpractice GuideGuide
Personal Injurymajority12,101 words
Read opinion