green
Positive treatment
Issue: confrontation clauseMO ↗
Issue: facts showing violationMO ↗
13.3 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
STATE OF MISSOURI v. JERRY STUDDARD
State v. Gannaway, 497 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Mo.App. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Drake
State v. Gannaway, 497 S.W.3d 819, 824-25 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ingalsbe
See State v. Gannaway , 497 S.W.3d 819 , 823 (Mo. App. 2016) ; State v. Burks , 373 S.W.3d 1 , 4 (Mo. App. 2012).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Steidley
“To preserve constitutional claims or errors for appellate review, they must be raised at the first opportunity with citations to specific constitutional sections.” State v. Tisius, 362 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Mo. banc 2012); see also State v. Gannaway, 497 S.W.3d 819, 822-23 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (holding that a defendant’s objection based on “a violation of due process and a violation of ... rights under both the United States Constitution and the Missouri” was not sufficiently specific to preserve the constitutional issue for appeal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN the INTEREST OF: A.H. Juvenile Officer and Department of Social Services, Children's Division
v.
S.U. (Father)
v.
S.U. (Father)
WD 79023.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 28, 2016.
Kurt Valentine, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent Juvenile Officer., Chris Koster, Attorney General, and Gary L. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent Missouri Department of Social Services, Children’s Division., Curtis G Hanrahan and Gabriel E. Harris, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant., Jessica M. Christiansen, Jefferson City, MO, guardian ad litem..
Hardwick, Martin, Newton.
Published
Order
Per CuriamS.U. appeals the juvenile court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, A.H. He contends the judgment was not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment. Rule 84.16(b).