Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownWD73743

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

JULY 10, 2012 WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WD73743 Rodney L. Swearengin vs. State of Missouri WD73848 Eric Barker vs. State of Missouri WD74172 In the Matter of the Tariff Filings of Union Electric Company, d/b/a Ameren Missouri, to increase its Revenues for retail electric service vs. Missouri Public Service Commission, Missouri Office of Public Counsel, Charter Communications, Meua, The Municipal Group, AARP and ConsumersCouncil of Missouri, Natural Resources Defense Council, Renew Missouri, MDNR,Missouri Department of Natural Resources, IBEW, Local Unions and International Union of Operating Engineers, Missouri-American Water Company WD74752 Heath A. Wilkins vs. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NONE

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

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