Doe v. Lee

Missouri Court of Appeals

Doe v. Lee

289 S.W.3d 674, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 567, 2009 WL 1122536

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 28, 2009

DocketED 91817

StatusPublished

This text of 289 S.W.3d 674 (Doe v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Lee, 289 S.W.3d 674, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 567, 2009 WL 1122536 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Lee and James Keathley, the appellants, appeal the St. Louis County Circuit Court judgment granting Jane Doe, the respondent, relief from the obligation to register as a sex offender under Section 489.400.1 RSMo (2007). The trial court ordered the appellants to remove the respondent's name from the Missouri Sexual Offenders Registry and delete, expunge and destroy all records obtained from the respondent's previous registration as a sexual offender. Appellants now appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Lee and James Keathley, the appellants, appeal the St. Louis County Circuit Court judgment granting Jane Doe, the respondent, relief from the obligation to register as a sex offender under Section 489.400.1 RSMo (2007). The trial court ordered the appellants to remove the respondent's name from the Missouri Sexual Offenders Registry and delete, expunge and destroy all records obtained from the respondent's previous registration as a sexual offender. Appellants now appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 S.W.3d 674, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 567, 2009 WL 1122536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-lee-moctapp-2009.