Section 213

Citation: Section 213
Parent Document: Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2018-02-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6241359/vermett-v-state/ ↗

Full Text

913 chars

After hearing testimony from both Respondents and Appellants, the MCHR found that the interactions between Respondents and Ms. Vermett on February 10, 2010 and February 16, 2010, demonstrated that their negotiations centered on Unit 1915C (as that unit was discussed on those dates), Ms. Vermett took Respondents to the door of Unit 1915C, and the parties had discussed a ramp leading to the security door of Building 1915 during *301Respondents' February 10, 2010 visit. Considering the contradictory testimony of Respondents and Ms. Vermett regarding discussions about Unit 1915C specifically and about building a ramp for that unit, it is clear that the MCHR believed the testimony of Respondents over that of Ms. Vermett. Because the MCHR is in a better position to evaluate and weigh testimony, we defer to the administrative agency's ability to determine witness credibility. Van Den Berk, 26 S.W.3d at 410.

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text