Bradley v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The portion of § 632.489.4 that Bradley relies on to support his claim that Dr. Weitl, as the author of his end-of-confinement report, should not have been allowed to testify as the State's expert reads as follows: "The court shall direct the director of the department of mental health to have the person examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist as defined in section 632.005 who was not a member of the multidisciplinary team that previously reviewed the person's records. " (Emphasis added.) Bradley reads the italicized portion as providing two alternative kinds of people, neither of whom may…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nichols v. Belleview R-III School DistrictMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
- Whitnell v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
- Proffer v. Federal Mogul Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2011
- Graves v. Atchison-Holt Electric Coop.Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 1994
- Gasconade County Counseling Services, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Mental HealthMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Tarshish Jones v. City of Kansas City, MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2019
- Amy Revis v. Donald Bassman, M.D.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2020
- Amy Revis v. Donald Bassman, M.D.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2020
- Blake H. Donaldson, D.O. v. Missouri State Board of Registration for The Healing ArtsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2020
- Catharine Sue Carter as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased) v. Missouri Department of CorrectionsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2025
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.