Shaw v. State, 931 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Shaw v. State, 931 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis Kallash and Toni Kallash v. Nicole Bruner-Jones
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
York v. Authorized Investor Group, Inc., 931 S.W.2d 882, 887 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). 5 Moreover, “restrictive covenants are narrowly construed and are not extended by implication to include anything not clearly expressed in them.” Lake Saint Louis Community Ass’n v. Ravenwood Properties, Ltd., 746 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) TERRY BRACKNEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RENATE MACK v. ROBERT WALKER and NANCY WALKER, CRYSTAL HOUSE and NATHANIEL HOUSE, CENTURY BANK OF THE OZARKS, and DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
York v. Authorized Inv’rs Grp., Inc., 931 S.W.2d 882, 887 (Mo. App. 1996); Stewart v. K-Mart Corp., 747 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo. App. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goad v. Ulrich
Mo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
York v. Authorized Investors Group, Inc., 931 S.W.2d 882, 886 (Mo.App.1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Trustees of Green Trails Estates Subdivision v. Marble
Mo. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
York v. Authorized Investors Group, Inc:, 931 S.W.2d 882, 886 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited "see" U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Boykin (In Re Boykin)
Bankr. E.D. Mo. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally York v. Authorized Investors Group, Inc., 931 S.W.2d 882, 887-88 (Mo.App.1996) (where property owners had the right to redeem even after the statutory redemption period expired, up and until the execution of the tax deed to the property); see also Wetmore v. Berger, 354 Mo. 158 , 188 S.W.2d 949, 953 (1945).
discussed Cited "see" Central County Emergency 911 v. International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 2665
Mo. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally York v. Authorized Investors Group, Inc., 931 S.W.2d 882, 887 (Mo.App.1996) (noting burden of proof rests on proponent of evidence); Olinger v. General Heating & Cooling Co., 896 S.W.2d 43, 50 (Mo.App.1994) (noting burden of proof remains on proponent of will); Stewart v. K-Mart Corp., 747 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo.App.1988) (“The burden of proof on an affirmative defense rests with the proponent of the defense”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Randy SHAW, Movant/Appellant
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
No. 69079.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Sep 3, 1996.
931 S.W.2d 882
Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Dowd, Gaertner, Reinhard.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).