Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Drudgegreen1 sentence2014However, Warren did not admit to any prior felonies, and the State does not contend that it submitted evidence of prior offender status. 4 for memorializing a finding of a defendant’s prior and persistent offender status” even where not preserved on appeal of Rule 24.035 motion); see also State v. Drudge, 296 S.W.3d 37, 40-41 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (correcting mistaken classification of offender status without finding plain error); Pittman v. State, 331 S.W.3d 361, 367 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (correcting clerical mistake on appeal of Rule 24.035 motion even where movant abandoned claim at the motio | 1 | 1 |
Pittman v. Stategreen1 sentence2014However, Warren did not admit to any prior felonies, and the State does not contend that it submitted evidence of prior offender status. 4 for memorializing a finding of a defendant’s prior and persistent offender status” even where not preserved on appeal of Rule 24.035 motion); see also State v. Drudge, 296 S.W.3d 37, 40-41 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (correcting mistaken classification of offender status without finding plain error); Pittman v. State, 331 S.W.3d 361, 367 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (correcting clerical mistake on appeal of Rule 24.035 motion even where movant abandoned claim at the motio | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 359 S.W.3d 568, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (correcting “the marking of boxes designated 1 At Warren’s plea hearing, the State indicated that Warren “has enough priors to be plead [sic] up as a prior and persistent offender,” and this statement was reflected in the SAR considered by the court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schlup v. Delo
red
2 sentences2001Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 315 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995); Clay v. Dor-miré, 37 S.W.3d at 217 . 2001Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 315 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995); Clay v. Dor-miré, 37 S.W.3d at 217 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clay v. Dormire
green
1 sentence2001Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 315 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995); Clay v. Dor-miré, 37 S.W.3d at 217 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Flathers v. Flathers
green
1 sentence1999In holding that letters of guardianship of minors are not prior custody decrees for purposes of § 452.410, the court stated: "[W]e recognize that § 452.445(2) defines the appointment of a guardian of the person as a ‘custody proceeding,’ and § 452.445(3) defines a judicial order entered in such proceeding as a ‘custody decree.’ However, by its terms, § 452.445 only expressly applies to §§ 452.440 to 452.550, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.” Flathers, 948 S.W.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Thummel v. King
green
1 sentence1994In addition, we observe deficiencies in some of Warren’s “points relied on.” This appeal is subject to dismissal, Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re the Marriage of Breen
green
1 sentence1978In truth, personal jurisdiction over an absent spouse is not necessary to confer jurisdiction for the purpose of dividing marital property. ' That legal proposition has been recently decided by this court in In re Marriage of Breen, 560 S.W.2d 358 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.