Rodgers v. State, 382 S.W.3d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Rodgers v. State, 382 S.W.3d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …disposed of the entire action as of the date the dismissal was filed. ⚠ not in text
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bradley Bearden v. Missouri Valley College (moctapp, 2020-02-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradley Bearden v. Missouri Valley College
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
The judgment also failed to address the allegations against the Fraternity Defendants contained in Count V. "[T]he trial court had the discretionary authority to open, amend, reverse, reconsider or vacate the interlocutory [order for partial summary judgment] at any point before a final judgment was entered." Hart v. Impey, 382 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Schnuck Markets, Inc
E.D. Mo. · 2019 · confidence medium
Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 67.02 “authorizes a plaintiff in a court-tried case to voluntarily dismiss either the entire action, or one or more counts thereof, without prejudice prior to the introduction of evidence at trial.” Hart v. Impey, 382 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo. App. 2012) (citing Mo. R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JOHN STEVEN LIST, Petitioner-Respondent v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Where a trial court enters an order which it has no authority to enter, the appellate court’s “role is limited to correcting the actions taken by the trial court in excess of its authority.” Hart v. Impey, 382 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo.App.S.D.2012).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Brune, Claimant/Respondent v. Johnson Controls, a/k/a Hoover Universal, Inc., Employer/Appellant.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Employer takes issue with the Commission's discussion of the principle articulated in Hart v. Impey, 382 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) ELLEN A. WISS and O. ELIZABETH CORBETT, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. GENE W. SPITZMILLER, Defendant/Trustee/Beneficiary-Appellant, and SHARON E. GUNN, Defendant/Trustee/Beneficiary-Respondent, and LINDA J. BRIDGER, Defendant/Beneficiary-Respondent.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Hart v. Impey, 382 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wiss v. Spitzmiller
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Hart v. Impey, 382 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo.App.S.D.2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darell T. RODGERS, Jr.
v.
STATE of Missouri
No. WD 74536.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Oct 30, 2012.
382 S.W.3d 918
2012 WL 5307924
Frederick Ernst and Ruth B. Sanders, Kansas City, MO, for appellant., Todd T. Smith, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Ahuja, Howard, Martin.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Darell Rodgers appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Rodgers claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because he established that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary in that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by failing to investigate and prepare a defense. Rodgers claims that had he not been coerced by plea counsel, he would not have pled guilty but would have proceeded to trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).