Dolan v. Dolan, 383 S.W.3d 34 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Dolan v. Dolan, 383 S.W.3d 34 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …on cross-examination, the state has an absolute right to demonstrate prior convictions and the nature and kind thereof for the purposes of impeachment, limited only by the restriction that the cross-examiner shall not go into details of the crimes leading to prior convictions. ⚠ not in text
53 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Leonard H. Burst
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
State v. Pittman, 695 S.W.3d 306 , 310 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024); State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Amadeo D. Gwin
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“When a defendant chooses to testify, he opens the door to an attack on his credibility by the prosecution through proof of his prior convictions.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Monica C. Shoemaker
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Closing arguments must be examined in the context of the entire record.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (quoting State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 540 (Mo. banc 2010)). 9 “Parties are allowed wide latitude during closing arguments; however, counsel may not stray beyond the evidence presented to the jury, suggest special or personal knowledge, or make ad hominem attacks designed to inflame the jury.” State v. Rasheed, 340 S.W.3d 280, 286 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Clinton M. Boyd
Mo. · 2023 · confidence medium
“During closing argument, the State is permitted considerable latitude in arguing the necessity of law enforcement, the duty of the jury to convict the defendant and prevent crime, and the results to society of a failure to uphold the law.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Mo. App. 2012).
cited Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRYON ALAN HANSEN
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
State v. Riggs, 520 S.W.3d 788, 797 (Mo.App. 2016) (citing State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo.App. 2012)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Gary L. Blue, Jr. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Plain error In a criminal case, it is generally improper for the State in closing argument “‘to excite and inflame passion or prejudice’ toward the defendant.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012), quoting State v. Kalter, 828 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Andrea Shaunte Straughter (4×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
While we review questions of law without deference to the trial court, we will not reverse a ruling under the abuse-of-discretion standard unless the defendant shows prejudice “to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different had the error not been committed.” Id. (quoting State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)). 2.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Brandon Shane Umfleet (7×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Tramble, 383 S.W.3d at 38 (internal citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Lance M. Swalve (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012); State v. Brown, 337 S.W.3d 12, 14 (Mo. banc 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRANDON EUGENE FISHER (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
"Plain error review is a two-step process." State v. Jensen, 524 S.W.3d 33, 42 (Mo. banc 2017); State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Carl E. Emerson (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
To be granted relief on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard, the defendant must show he was prejudiced by the trial court’s error “to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different had the error not been committed.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (citing State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 537 , 540 (Mo. banc 2010)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Watkins
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Chadwick Leland Walter (2×)
Mo. · 2016 · confidence medium
When a party does not properly preserve an argument at trial, the Court may, in its discretion, review the argument for plain error when there is a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.”); State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 750 (Mo. banc 2012) (failure of defense counsel to object to state’s closing argument results in plain error review); State v. Tisius, 362 S.W.3d 398, 409 (Mo. banc 2012) (acknowledging that defense counsel’s failure to object to the state’s closing argument results in plain error standard of review pursuant to Rule 30.20); State v. Evans, 410 S.W.3d 258, 26…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Morgan
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jones
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D.2012) (internal citation omitted).
discussed Cited "see" State of Missouri v. Frederick J. Brown
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). 3 All rule references are to the Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure (2020), unless otherwise indicated. 3 Plain errors are only those that are evident, obvious, and clear.
discussed Cited "see" STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JAMES A. RIGGS (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo.App.2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Melda DOLAN
v.
James J. DOLAN
No. ED 97381.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Oct 2, 2012.
383 S.W.3d 34
Mary M. Albert>-Fritz, Brighton, IL, for Appellant., Richard J. Eisen, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
Dowd, Quigless, Richter.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melda Dolan (“Mother”) appeals from a judgment modifying child custody, modifying child support, and awarding attorney fees and Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) fees to James Dolan (“Father”). Mother argues the trial court (1) abused its discretion in awarding attorney and GAL fees to Father, and (2) in refusing to allow Mother to call the parties’ minor child (“Child”) as a witness; (3) erred in its handling of expert testimony; (4) abused its discretion and committed plain error in receiving the GAL’s recommendation without testimony or cross-examination and after the cause was submitted, and (5) in modifying physical custody of Child.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).