The court reversed the judgment from the appellate court.

Judgment reversed; cases remanded. 8-1 Decision; 1 Concurrence; 1 Dissent.

The judgment in favor of respondent was affirmed.

The Court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in the professor's favor.

Judgment affirmed.

Finding that petitioners had no contacts, ties, or relations with the State of Oklahoma, the Court reversed the state supreme court's denial of a writ of prohibition.

The convictions were vacated and petitioners were granted a new trial based on a chain of inferences indicating prejudicial error in that the trial court may have considered each petitioner's statement as corroboration of the other petitioner's guilt, thus violating the rule that a co-conspirator's hearsay statements were admissible against an accused only if made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy...

The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the physicians.

Judgment affirmed; officer's probable cause to believe petitioners violated traffic code rendered the vehicle stop reasonable and the evidence seized admissible.

Affirmed because the insurer was under no obligation to defend or indemnify the third party action, and could not be found liable for statutory bad faith or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The court reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to vacate the order that had granted the motion to compel and to enter a new order denying the motion.

A prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

The judgment holding that scienter was sufficiently alleged was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The judgment upholding the jury's award of punitive damages was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed because the former employee established a prima facie case of discrimination by his former employer, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject the employer's explanation, produced additional evidence of age-based animus, and because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer had intentionally discriminated against the employee.

The judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded for proceedings consistent with the court's opinion that it was error to dismiss for failure to state a claim because appellants' complaint established a relationship leading to a profitable contract, and the law protected such a relationship. The court also held that the claim of defamation was stated with sufficient particularity as to three statements deemed...

The Court substantially affirmed the holding of the court of appeals, although it also found that the reporting provision related to husband notification was invalid, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The court affirmed the judgment.

Affirmed as modified.

The notice statute was found unconstitutional. The Court held that the statute was required to afford reasonable time for those interested to make an appearance and that the notice requirement under the statute was inadequate because it did not provide for the means to contact those who could easily be informed by other means.

The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court was affirmed. 5-4 Decision; two opinions, one concurrence; one concurrence in part and dissent in part; one dissent.

The court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case.

The order holding that the allegations in plaintiff former employee's complaint against defendant former employer were adequate to state a cause of action for fraud was affirmed because plaintiff's allegations established all of the elements of promissory fraud.

The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the appellate court, vacated the district court's order staying respondents' suits, and remanded the cause to the district court to determine the motion for a stay in accordance with the principles laid down in the court's opinion, since the district court's stay order exceeded the limits of a fair discretion.