green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
39.9 score
“he court of appeals is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the supreme court of missouri.”
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ELMER ANTONIO NIETO
when a prosecutor seriously misstates the law so as to lower the state's burden of proof, it is error.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Missouri, Ex Rel., Jeffrey K. Basinger v. John R. Ashcroft in his official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State
he court of appeals is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the supreme court of missouri.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri, Ex Rel., Eric Schmitt, Attorney General v. Mun Choi
The State also cites Louisiana authority holding that laws regulating the right to bear arms are presumptively invalid in that state, however those cases are unpersuasive where, as here, the Supreme Court of this state has repeatedly declared the opposite presumption. "'[T]he Court of Appeals is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri.'" State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Ramey
“The Court of Appeals is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri v. Dustin Demont Brown
The "'[t]rial court's rulings on objections to closing arguments are reviewed for abuse of discretion; however, when a proper objection is made, the trial courts should exclude 'statements that misrepresent the evidence or the law' or statements that 'tend to confuse 10 the jury.''" Id. (quoting State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012), itself quoting State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 543 (Mo. banc 2010)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Matson
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hood
We are constitutionally bound to follow our supreme court’s latest controlling opinion, State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. 2012), Defendant’s point is denied.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri v. Jason L. Berry
We cannot accede to Berry’s request to alter our standard of review. "[T]he Court of Appeals is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (internal quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri v. Chadwick Leland Walter
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 203 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); State v. Barton, 936 S.W.2d 781, 786 (Mo. banc 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel R. McGough v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 197-98 (Mo.App.2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matthew S. Bartholomew v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 197-98 (Mo.App.2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Andrew Johnson
See Nicholls v. Kammerich, 626 S.W.2d 653, 659 (MoApp.WD.1981) (counsel may not instruct the jury as to a rule of law in closing argument; such declarations must be made by the judge), and State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (application of rule during clos *505 ing argument).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri v. Gregory Robinson, Sr.
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Mo.App.W.D.2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri v. Chadwick Leland Walter
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (citing State v. Agee, 350 S.W.3d 83, 96-97 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chad Nicholas Ayler v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
“Generally, multifarious points preserve nothing for appellate review and are ordinarily subject to dismissal.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Mo.App.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael L. Mackey v. Steven B. Smith, M.D.
"Generally, multifarious points preserve nothing for appellate review and are ordinarily subject to dismissal.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (internal quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ericka J Sauvain, Amy Leigh Sauvain, by Next Friend, Ericka J Sauvain and Bonnie S Hughes v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Mo.App.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ericka J. Sauvain, Amy Leigh Sauvain, by Next Friend Ericka J. Sauvain, and Bonnie S. Hughes v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). „“Generally, multifarious points preserve nothing for appellate review and are ordinarily subject to dismissal.‟” Id. (quoting State v. Agee, 350 S.W.3d 83, 97 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Payne
If we do find plain error on the face of the claim, we have the discretion to proceed to the second step to consider whether a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if the error is left uncorrected.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 204 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (quoting State v. Fincher, 359 S.W.3d 549, 553-54 (Mo.App.W.D.2012)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State ex rel. Bank of America N.A. v. Kanatzar
State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo.App.
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Interest of: J.N.W. v. Juvenile Officer
See State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (observing that "[t]he Court of Appeals is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri" (quoting State v. Clinch, 335 S.W.3d 579, 584 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011)).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Missouri v. Brandon J. Naylor
See State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 199 (Mo. App. 2012).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Missouri v. Hector C. Castro
State v. Hamm, 807 S.W.2d 692, 692 (Mo.App.W.D.1991) (citing Welch, 701 S.W.2d at 771 ); see also State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 203 (Mo.App.W.D.2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stephen K. AVERY
v.
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
v.
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
No. ED 97669.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Sep 18, 2012.
Martin L. Perron, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant., Ninion S. Riley, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Ahrens, Norton, Sullivan.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.On the court’s own motion, the order and memorandum in the above styled case handed down on August 28, 2012 are withdrawn. A new order and memorandum are being issued. The appellant’s motion for rehearing, or in the alternative, application for transfer to the Supreme Court is denied as moot.
ORDER
Claimant Stephen Avery appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that his administrative appeal was untimely and, therefore, a deputy’s determination that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits was final.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The commission’s decision is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).