first part instruction in Missouri

39 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1900–2024 4 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Whitakergreen moctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021State v. Whitaker, 405 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Mo.App.	1	1
Childers v. Childersgreen moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Childers v. Childers, 26 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Mo.App.2000). 2002Id.	1	1
Burnett v. Burnettgreen moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002Burnett v. Burnett, 18 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Mo.App.2000).	1	1
Barrett v. Danbury Hospitalgreen conn · 1995 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See Barrett v. Danbury Hosp., 232 Conn. 242 , 654 A.2d 748 (Conn.1995)(where Supreme Court of Connecticut 926 applies its similar test for recovery for infliction of emotional distress to a fear of AIDS case). 1998See Barrett v. Danbury Hosp., 232 Conn. 242 , 654 A.2d 748 (Conn.1995)(where Supreme Court of Connecticut 926 applies its similar test for recovery for infliction of emotional distress to a fear of AIDS case).	1	1
State v. Charlesgreen mo · 1981 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983State v. Charles, 612 S.W.2d 778, 780 (Mo. banc 1981).	1	1
Seales v. Stategreen mo · 1979 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982The now-familiar two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel is in Seales v. State, 580 S.W.2d 733, 736 (Mo.banc 1979): [A] defendant must show that his attorney failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances, and that he was prejudiced thereby. [Emphasis added.] We cannot know on this record and therefore do not intimate whether movant could satisfy the first part of the test.	1	1
State v. Darbygreen moctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980Rule 29.11(d); State v. Fingers, 564 S.W.2d 579, 584 [11-14] (Mo.App.1978); State v. Darby, 563 S.W.2d 131, 132 [2] (Mo.App.1978).	1	1
State v. Johnsongreen mo · 1979 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980As to the second segment of defendant’s point, it must be remembered that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property does not raise an inference that the possessor is guilty of receiving stolen property from another [State v. Johnson, 580 S.W.2d 254, 259 (Mo. banc 1979)] and that the only state evidence as to how defendant came into possession of the property was that he stole it from the people who had first stolen it.	1	1
State v. Fingersgreen moctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980Rule 29.11(d); State v. Fingers, 564 S.W.2d 579, 584 [11-14] (Mo.App.1978); State v. Darby, 563 S.W.2d 131, 132 [2] (Mo.App.1978).	1	1
M. F. A. Cooperative Ass'n of Mansfield v. Murraygreen moctapp · 1963 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 1 sentence 1972Cooperative Ass’n of Mansfield v. Murray, Mo.App., 365 S.W.2d 279, 289 [16-18].	1	1
State v. Stogsdillgreen · 1929 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960See State v. Stogsdill, 324 Mo. 105 , 23 S.W.2d 22, 26 ; State v. Drake, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 374, 377 ; Vol. 2, Raymond’s Missouri Instructions, § 3729, p. 134. 1960See State v. Stogsdill, 324 Mo. 105 , 23 S.W.2d 22, 26 ; State v. Drake, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 374, 377 ; Vol. 2, Raymond’s Missouri Instructions, § 3729, p. 134.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (41)

Case	Cited	Years
White v. Director of Revenue green mo · 2010 2 sentences 2022White, 321 S.W.3d at 310 . 2017Id.	3	2010–2022
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2017Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 2017Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .	2	1993–2017
In Re Estate of Robinson green minn · 1934 2 sentences 1960"It is competent for the Legislature to declare for the purpose of succession taxes, that the person executing the power shall be considered the source of the estate which is received by reason of the exercise of the power." In re Estate of Robinson, 192 Minn. 39, 42 , 255 N.W. 486, 487 ; State v. Brooks, 181 Minn. 262 , 232 N.W. 331 . 1960"It is competent for the Legislature to declare for the purpose of succession taxes, that the person executing the power shall be considered the source of the estate which is received by reason of the exercise of the power." In re Estate of Robinson, 192 Minn. 39, 42 , 255 N.W. 486, 487 ; State v. Brooks, 181 Minn. 262 , 232 N.W. 331 .	2	1960–1960
State v. Brooks neutral minn · 1930 2 sentences 1960"It is competent for the Legislature to declare for the purpose of succession taxes, that the person executing the power shall be considered the source of the estate which is received by reason of the exercise of the power." In re Estate of Robinson, 192 Minn. 39, 42 , 255 N.W. 486, 487 ; State v. Brooks, 181 Minn. 262 , 232 N.W. 331 . 1960"It is competent for the Legislature to declare for the purpose of succession taxes, that the person executing the power shall be considered the source of the estate which is received by reason of the exercise of the power." In re Estate of Robinson, 192 Minn. 39, 42 , 255 N.W. 486, 487 ; State v. Brooks, 181 Minn. 262 , 232 N.W. 331 .	2	1960–1960
Jackson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. neutral sd · 1914 2 sentences 1920Co., 147 N.W. 732, 733 .] The instruction was so drawn as to lead the jury to understand that the defendant was liable for whatever bad condition the stock was in whether it arose from negligent delay or from any other cause, and the words "considering the distance traveled" used in the first part of the instruction are not sufficient to explain and keep clear that distinction. 1920Co., 147 N. W. 732, 733 .] The instruction was so drawn as to lead the jury to understand that the defendant was liable for whatever bad condition the stock was in whether it arose from negligent delay or from any other cause, and the words “considering the distance traveled” used in the first part of the instruction are not sufficient to explain and keep clear that distinction.	2	1920–1920
State v. Stewart green moctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2024Id.	1	2024–2024
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg green tex · 2007 1 sentence 2022The first part of the inquiry is the premise that “only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Id. (citing Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc., 168 S.W.3d at 785 ).	1	2022–2022
Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten green tex · 2005 1 sentence 2022The first part of the inquiry is the premise that “only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Id. (citing Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc., 168 S.W.3d at 785 ).	1	2022–2022
Smith v. Doe green scotus · 2003 2 sentences 2013The first part of the test requires the Court to “ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish ‘civil’ proceedings.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 92 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 . 2013The first part of the test requires the Court to “ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish ‘civil’ proceedings.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 92 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 .	1	2013–2013
Ornelas v. United States green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2010The trial court's probable cause determination is reviewed by establishing the facts and applying the law to those facts: The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of the historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory or [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated." Id. at 696-97 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 (quoting Pullm 2010The trial court's probable cause determination is reviewed by establishing the facts and applying the law to those facts: The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of the historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory or [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated." Id. at 696-97 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 (quoting Pullm	1	2010–2010
Pullman-Standard v. Swint green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2010The trial court's probable cause determination is reviewed by establishing the facts and applying the law to those facts: The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of the historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory or [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated." Id. at 696-97 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 (quoting Pullm 2010The trial court's probable cause determination is reviewed by establishing the facts and applying the law to those facts: The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of the historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory or [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated." Id. at 696-97 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 (quoting Pullm	1	2010–2010
State v. White green moctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2005“The second part of the instruction, part B, gives specific instructions relating to the specific case.” Id., Note on Use 5.	1	2005–2005
McKaskle v. Wiggins green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2000As the Supreme Court stated in McKaskle , “[a] defendant’s invitation to counsel to participate in the trial obliterates any claim that the participation in question deprived the defendant of control over his defense.” McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 182 , 104 S.Ct. 944 . 2000As the Supreme Court stated in McKaskle , “[a] defendant’s invitation to counsel to participate in the trial obliterates any claim that the participation in question deprived the defendant of control over his defense.” McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 182 , 104 S.Ct. 944 .	1	2000–2000
Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue green mo · 1992 1 sentence 1999Id.	1	1999–1999
State v. Drake green mo · 1957 1 sentence 1960See State v. Stogsdill, 324 Mo. 105 , 23 S.W.2d 22, 26 ; State v. Drake, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 374, 377 ; Vol. 2, Raymond’s Missouri Instructions, § 3729, p. 134.	1	1960–1960
Le Grand v. U-Drive-It Co. green mo · 1952 1 sentence 1959We consider the first part of the instruction in this case to be comparable to the instruction considered in Le Grand v. U-Drive-It Co., Mo.Sup., 247 S.W.2d 706, 712 , where the court said that the instruction told the jury that “ ‘the mere fact of itself (and without more) that plaintiff was injured’ is no evidence of negligence.	1	1959–1959
State v. Duestrow green · 1897 1 sentence 1951The first part of this instruction reads: “In this case insanity is interposed by the defendant ’s counsel as an excuse for the charge set forth in the amended information: * * Appellant contends that the above quoted part of the instruction is misleading and disparaged the defense of insanity. ’ *674 The state relies on the following cases to show that this part of the instruction is not erroneous: State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44 ; State v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222 , 56 S. W. 734 ; State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193 , 101 S. W. 27 ; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362 , 80 S. W. 2d 865 ; State v. Murphy,	1	1951–1951
State v. Holloway green mo · 1900	1	1951–1951
State v. Waters green mo · 1900	1	1951–1951
State v. Paulsgrove neutral · 1907 2 sentences 1951The first part of this instruction reads: “In this case insanity is interposed by the defendant ’s counsel as an excuse for the charge set forth in the amended information: * * Appellant contends that the above quoted part of the instruction is misleading and disparaged the defense of insanity. ’ 674 The state relies on the following cases to show that this part of the instruction is not erroneous: State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44 ; State v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222 , 56 S. W. 734 ; State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193 , 101 S. W. 27 ; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362 , 80 S. W. 2d 865 ; State v. Murphy, 1951The first part of this instruction reads: “In this case insanity is interposed by the defendant ’s counsel as an excuse for the charge set forth in the amended information: * Appellant contends that the above quoted part of the instruction is misleading and disparaged the defense of insanity. ’ *674 The state relies on the following cases to show that this part of the instruction is not erroneous: State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44 ; State v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222 , 56 S. W. 734 ; State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193 , 101 S. W. 27 ; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362 , 80 S. W. 2d 865 ; State v. Murphy,	1	1951–1951
State v. Murphy green mo · 1936	1	1951–1951
State v. Barbata green · 1935	1	1951–1951
State v. Hardy green mo · 1950 2 sentences 1951The first part of this instruction reads: “In this case insanity is interposed by the defendant ’s counsel as an excuse for the charge set forth in the amended information: * * Appellant contends that the above quoted part of the instruction is misleading and disparaged the defense of insanity. ’ 674 The state relies on the following cases to show that this part of the instruction is not erroneous: State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44 ; State v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222 , 56 S. W. 734 ; State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193 , 101 S. W. 27 ; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362 , 80 S. W. 2d 865 ; State v. Murphy, 1951The first part of this instruction reads: “In this case insanity is interposed by the defendant ’s counsel as an excuse for the charge set forth in the amended information: * Appellant contends that the above quoted part of the instruction is misleading and disparaged the defense of insanity. ’ *674 The state relies on the following cases to show that this part of the instruction is not erroneous: State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44 ; State v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222 , 56 S. W. 734 ; State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193 , 101 S. W. 27 ; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362 , 80 S. W. 2d 865 ; State v. Murphy,	1	1951–1951
Stumpf v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. green · 1945	1	1950–1950
Goodwin Ex Rel. Goodwin v. Eugas green mo · 1921	1	1941–1941
State v. Jones neutral · 1883	1	1938–1938
Landau v. Cottrill neutral · 1900	1	1938–1938
McCloskey Ex Rel. McCloskey v. Koplar green mo · 1932	1	1934–1934
Peters v. Kansas City Rys. Co. green moctapp · 1920	1	1924–1924
Maxey v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. green moctapp · 1902	1	1924–1924
Young v. City of Webb City green mo · 1899	1	1919–1919
Torreyson v. United Railways Co. neutral mo · 1912	1	1919–1919
State v. Weisman neutral mo · 1911	1	1918–1918
State v. Sloan green · 1871	1	1914–1914
State v. Darling green mo · 1907	1	1914–1914
Detrich v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. neutral moctapp · 1910	1	1912–1912
Hunt v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad neutral moctapp · 1907	1	1910–1910
Anderson v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. neutral moctapp · 1908	1	1910–1910
Wilburn v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. neutral moctapp · 1889	1	1900–1900
McKee v. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railroad green moctapp · 1892	1	1900–1900

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.505 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.535 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 125 (1974–2024) OH 95 (1975–2026) NM 90 (1971–2026) IL 75 (1887–2025) CA 68 (1882–2025) WA 64 (1905–2026) UT 63 (1911–2026) PA 59 (1904–2026) CT 56 (1898–2026) FL 39 (1937–2023) MO 39 (1900–2024) WI 32 (1909–2026) NY 32 (1860–2024) OR 28 (1928–2026) IA 27 (1866–2026) GA 25 (1994–2026) IN 22 (1894–2023) MD 22 (1919–2025) MA 21 (1907–2017) NJ 21 (1980–2024) NC 20 (1986–2026) MI 18 (1897–2025) MT 17 (1937–2022) KS 16 (1893–2026) AZ 16 (1966–2018) CO 16 (1909–2026) DC 13 (1947–2024) ND 13 (1955–2025) WY 11 (1961–2022) ME 11 (1909–2021) SD 11 (1951–2011) TN 10 (1979–2026) AL 10 (1983–2023) NE 10 (1987–2025) VT 10 (1916–2022) VA 10 (1837–2025) KY 10 (1882–2020) RI 10 (1993–2020) OK 10 (1898–2018) MS 9 (1884–2022) ID 9 (1909–2021) HI 8 (2002–2021) NH 8 (2003–2021) AR 8 (1923–2018) LA 7 (1997–2023) MN 6 (1919–2024) WV 6 (1890–2024) SC 5 (1993–2013) NV 5 (1998–2022) DE 3 (2008–2026) VI 2 (2010–2014) AK 2 (1986–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance