In Re the Care & Treatment of Hurd

Missouri Court of Appeals

In Re the Care & Treatment of Hurd

350 S.W.3d 48, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

DocketED 96009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 S.W.3d 48 (In Re the Care & Treatment of Hurd) 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 the Care & Treatment of Hurd, 350 S.W.3d 48, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Hurd (hereinafter, “Hurd”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody and care of the Department of Mental Health pursuant to Section 632.480 RSMo (2000). Hurd raises one point on appeal, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in that the expert’s testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish Hurd met the definition of a sexually violent predator.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the *49 reasons for our decision. 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.

Thomas Hurd (hereinafter, “Hurd”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody and care of the Department of Mental Health pursuant to Section 632.480 RSMo (2000). Hurd raises one point on appeal, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in that the expert’s testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish Hurd met the definition of a sexually violent predator.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the *49 reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 S.W.3d 48, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-care-treatment-of-hurd-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack