How cited: State v. Fields · Go Syfert

State v. Fields (1969)

green · 44 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 15 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 15
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196919972026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green State v. Cobb (1969)
Rule Authority · Mo. · 4 citations in this opinion
State v. Fields, Mo., 442 S.W.2d 30, 34 [6]; State v. Ramsey, Mo., 368 S.W.2d 413, 418 [8-10].
green State v. Hardiman (1997)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
Point I alleges the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to the admission of the cocaine into evidence because “Officer John Blakeley exceeded the scope of Albert Davis’ consent to search the ear when he opened the blue bag found under the seat.” The admissibility of evidence seized as a result of a search and the procedure required to challenge such evidence is explained in State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969): It has long been the rule in this stat…
green State v. Vinzant (1986)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969).
green Williams v. State (1982)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
See Rule 24.05; State v. Jackson, 477 S.W.2d 47, 50-51 (Mo.1972); State v. Caffey, 457 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Mo.1970); State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969); State v. Harrington, 435 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Mo.1968).
green State v. McClinton (1978)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Cobb, 444 S.W.2d 408, 414 (Mo.1969); State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 35 (Mo.1969); State v. Kennedy, 396 S.W.2d 595, 598 (Mo.1968).
green State v. Dayton (1976)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969); State v. Yowell, 513 S.W.2d 397, 402 [1, 2] (Mo. banc 1974).
green State v. Roberts (1975)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 [2, 3] (Mo.1969); State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681 , 162 S.W.2d 878, 887 [14, 15] (1942); State v. O’Brien, 252 S.W.2d 357, 359 [2] (Mo.1952); State v. Thompson, 490 S.W.2d 50, 52 [2] (Mo.1973), and cases cited therein.
green State v. Thomas (1975)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969).
green State v. Triplett (1975)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Caffey, 457 S.W.2d 657, 659 [3] (Mo.1970); State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 [3] (Mo.1969).
green State v. Yowell (1974)
Rule Authority · Mo.
State v. Lord, [Mo., 286 S.W. 2d 737 ] supra. The only exception under our procedural rule is where the defendant ‘had no reason to anticipate the evidence would be introduced and was surprised.’ State v. O’Brien, supra, 252 S.W.2d [357] at p. 359.” State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969).
green State v. Maxwell (1973)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Caffey, 457 S.W. 2d 657, 659 [3] (Mo.1970); State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 [3] (Mo.1969); State v. Holt, 415 S.W.2d 761, 765 [2] (Mo.1967).
green State v. Vineyard (1973)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 35 [10] (Mo.1969); State v. Kennedy, 396 S.W.2d 595, 598 [2] (Mo.1965); State v. Durham, 367 S.W.2d 619, 621 [2] (Mo.1963).
green State v. Thompson (1973)
Rule Authority · Mo.
He must also keep the question alive by timely objection, State v. Tunnell, 302 Mo. 433 , 259 S.W. 128 ; State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681 , 162 S.W.2d 878 , and by preservation of the issue in a motion for new trial.” State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Mo.1969).
green State v. Brownridge (1970)
Rule Authority · Mo.
“The procedural rules of this state, with an exception not here material, require that the contention of an unlawful search and seizure be made by motion to suppress the evidence in advance of trial.” State v. Fields, Mo.Sup., 442 S.W.2d 30, 33 [2], Defendant must also present evidence to sustain his contentions, State v. Holt, Mo.Sup., 415 S.W.2d 761 , and keep the question alive by timely objection.
green State v. Hale (1976)
Cited (see also) · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: compare
Compare State v. Fields, 442 S.W.2d 30 [9—10] (Mo.1969).