green
Positive treatment
20.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
JULIA ANN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ARTHUR HAWES, M.D. and FERRELL-DUNCAN CLINIC, INC., Defendants-Respondents
Co., 236 S.W.3d 54, 63 (Mo. App. 2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rochelle Ameer v. Lyft, Inc., and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes
Cooperative, 966 S.W.2d 15, 21-25 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (opinion readopted after retransfer, June 2, 1998) (supply of electricity); Hershley v. Brown, 655 S.W.2d 671, 674-75 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983) (medical services). 10 See also Poage, 523 S.W.3d at 506-30 (gaskets and packing); Feiteira v. Clark Equipment Co., 236 S.W.3d 54, 57-65 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (steer-skid loader); Sanders v. Wallace, 817 S.W.2d 511, 513-18 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (tractor); Wild v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 752 S.W.2d 335, 336-40 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) (ladder); Klein v. General Elec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joe Frazier v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
Co., 236 S.W.3d 54, 63 (Mo.App.E.D.2007). “ ‘Impeachment’ is directed to the credibility of a witness for the purpose of discrediting the witness and ordinarily furnishes no factual evidence, whereas ‘contradiction’ is directed to the accuracy of a witness’ testimony and supplies additional evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kline v. City of Kansas City
Co., 236 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Mo.App.E.D.2007).
cited
Cited "see"
Travelers Commercial Casualty Company v. Vac-It-All Services, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
See Feiteira v. Clark Equipment Company, 236 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Mo.App.E.D.2007).
cited
Cited "see"
Martin v. Survivair Respirators, Inc.
See Feiteira v. Clark Equipment Co., 236 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Mo.App.
Morris LOCKETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent
ED 88288.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Aug 21, 2007.
Jessica Hathaway, St. Louis, MO, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joshua N. Corman, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Richter, Crane, Sullivan.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.'Morris Lockett appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).