State v. Clark, 174 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Clark, 174 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Xtra Lease LLC, Respondent, v. United Trans Logistics, Inc., Appellant. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 706 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thorp v. Thorp
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 708-09 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tolbert v. Automotive Finance Corp.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Nat’l Banks v. Potts, 30 S.W.3d 220, 222-23 (Mo.App.2000). “[Associate circuit judges are no longer burdened with any monetary limitation on their subject matter jurisdiction.” Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 709 (Mo.App.2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cain v. Porter (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 707-08 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Golden Valley Disposal, LLC v. Jenkins Diesel Power, Inc.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
“Res judicata only applies after a final judgment has been rendered.” Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 707 (Mo.App.2005); see also Dodson v. City of Wentzville, 133 S.W.3d 528, 538 (Mo.App.2004); Deatherage v. Cleghorn, 115 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Mo.App.2003).
discussed Cited "see" Allison v. Allison
Mo. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 706 (Mo.App.2005) (“the trial court is free to treat a motion filed pursuant to Rule 74.06 as an independent action in equity if its substance is ‘sufficient to invoke the equitable powers, of the court’ ”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re the Marriage of Coonts
Mo. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Spino v. Bhakta, 174 S.W.3d 702, 706 (Mo.App.2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Brandon L. CLARK, Appellant
WD 64343.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Nov 1, 2005.
174 S.W.3d 702
Margaret Mueller Johnston, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Attorney General, joins on the briefs, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, joins on the briefs for respondent.
Ulrich, Breckenridge, Smart.
Published

Order

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Clark appeals the denial of his motion for new trial on his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, § 195.211. Clark raises one point on appeal. He challenges the trial court’s decision to allow the opinion testimony of a highway patrol officer as to drug distribution practices.

Having carefully considered the contentions on appeal, we find no grounds for reversing the decision. Publication of a formal opinion would not serve jurisprudential purposes or add to understanding of existing law. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).