HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Bolin, 519 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Bolin, 519 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …was speeding, driving recklessly, and swerving into the other lane. ⚠ not in text
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Missouri v. Dylan Jacob Garoutte III (moctapp, 2024-07-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018 2022 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Dylan Jacob Garoutte III
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Davis, 71 S.W.3d 659, 665 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (The State has the burden to disprove a special negative defense, but only once the defendant “first produces evidence sufficient to inject the defense at trial.”); State v. Jones, 519 S.W.3d 818, 825 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (explaining that an affirmative defense “is an independent bar to liability in which the defendant carries the burden of persuasion . . . that the defense is more probably true than not.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Dominic S. Yocco (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Jones, 519 S.W.3d 818, 826 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI v. SEBASTIAN A. RUST
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Barton, 552 S.W.3d at 587 . “[A]n affirmative defense does not negate any of the essential elements that the state must prove in order to convict a defendant.” State v. Jones, 519 S.W.3d 818, 825 (Mo.App. 2017) (citing State v. Faruqi, 344 S.W.3d 193 , 201 n.3 (Mo. banc 2011)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. IRA S. BRUCE
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Attempt crimes require two elements: “(1) defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Jones, 519 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (quoting State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ralph B. Jones v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Jones’s convictions and sentences in State v. Jones, 519 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. RICARTE SOLIBEN
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
See § 565.002(6); § 455.010(7). 4 Prior to January 1, 2017, physical injury was defined to mean “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition[.]” See § 556.061(20); State v. Jones, 519 S.W.3d 818, 824 (Mo. App. 2017). 5 to the jury’s verdict, there was evidence that Defendant knowingly caused physical pain to T.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Keith B. Hudson (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
The relevant portion of Instruction No. 8 provided that, to convict Hudson, the jury must find that “in the course of taking the property, [Hudson] displayed or threatened the use of what appeared to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” Instruction No. 8 did not, however, define the term “dangerous instrument.” This violated Note on Use 3 to MAI-CR 323.02, which states that when the term “dangerous instrument” is used in the instruction, “the paragraph defining that term must be used.” The omitted definition would have advised the jury that a “dangerous instrument” …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
v.
Donald BOLIN and Kimberly Bolin, and John DOE and Mary Roe
No. ED 104152.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Mar 14, 2017.
519 S.W.3d 818
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 173
2017 WL 971841
Donald Bolin, Imperial, MO, acting Pro Se, Kimberly Bolin, Imperial, MO, acting Pro Se, Matthew Miguel Peters, Martin Leigh, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent
Hoff, III, Lisa.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donald and Kimberly Bolin (“Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and judgment for possession of the property (“Judgment”) in favor of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Respondent”) on Respondent’s action in unlawful detainer to obtain immediate possession of the property located at 5019 Meadow Drive, Imperial, MO 63052 (the “Property”). On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting its Judgment in favor of Respondent because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Respondent was not entitled to possession of the Property because it engaged in fraud in obtaining title to the Property. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of , summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).