Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

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

Decision date: UnknownWD73972

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

FEBRUARY 26, 2013 WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WD73972 In the matter of the care and treatment of Christopher Alexander, a/k/a Christopher L. Alexander, a/k/a Chris Alexander, a/k/a Christophe Alexander, a/k/a Christoph Alexander, a/k/a James F. Hawkins vs. State of Missouri WD74506 John J. Holliday vs. State of Missouri WD75046 Robert G. Lee vs. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole WD75255 Demond Tart vs. Division of Employment Security WD75374 Joby J. Raines vs. Director of Revenue

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b) AND ISSUED PER CURIAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WD73736 State of Missouri vs. Christopher W. Helton WD74904 State of Missouri vs. Raymond Jessie Cook WD74725 State of Missouri vs. Franklin Eugene Carrender

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