In re Taylor

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Taylor

380 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 4078919, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 18, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97769

StatusPublished

This text of 380 S.W.3d 613 (In re Taylor) 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

In re Taylor, 380 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 4078919, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Taylor appeals from the probate court’s judgment after a jury trial committing him to secure confinement in the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found each necessary element by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.B., 334 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Taylor appeals from the probate court’s judgment after a jury trial committing him to secure confinement in the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found each necessary element by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.B., 334 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 4078919, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack