Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Contract and Criminal Cases

By FindLaw Staff on March 29, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Cole v. Homier Dist. Co., No. 09-1725, an action for breach of a tractor dealership agreement, the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant in part where 1) because the dealership agreements at issue were not preexisting, but arose out of the agreements with defendant, plaintiff could not state a claim for tortious interference; 2) plaintiff's allegations did not provide grounds to infer an intent to defraud at the time of the agreement's formation; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that an expert's report was flawed both factually and methodologically.  However, the court reversed in part, on the ground that there were factual issues as to whether defendant made sales of whole goods during the notice period under Mo. Rev. Stat. section 407.405.

In US v. Ward, No. 09-1882, the Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's child pornography conviction, on the ground that the district court excluded defendant from trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment, because a trial judge may control disruptive talking during a trial, but an absolute ban on the defendant talking to counsel was, in some circumstances, a violation of the defendant's right to counsel.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard