38 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Higginsgreen2 sentences1988See Higgins, 592 S.W.2d at 160 . 1987See Higgins, 592 S.W.2d at 160 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Schnellegreen2 sentences2003State v. Schnelle, 924 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Mo.App. 1996). 2003State v. Schnelle, 924 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Mo.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences1968The duration and nature of incommunicado custody, the presence or absence of advice concerning the defendant’s constitutional rights, and the granting or refusal of requests to communicate with lawyers, relatives or friends have all been rightly regarded as important data bearing on the basic inquiry.’ (Dissenting opinion of Justice White in Miranda v. State of Arizona; see also dissenting opinion of Justice Clark therein; see also Davis v. State of North Carolina, October Term 1965, 384 U.S. 737 , 86 S.Ct. 1761 , 16 L.Ed.2d 895 .) We do not understand that Escobedo changed the totality of the 1968The duration and nature of incommunicado custody, the presence or absence of advice concerning the defendant’s constitutional rights, and the granting or refusal of requests to communicate with lawyers, relatives or friends have all been rightly regarded as important data bearing on the basic inquiry.’ (Dissenting opinion of Justice White in Miranda v. State of Arizona; see also dissenting opinion of Justice Clark therein; see also Davis v. State of North Carolina, October Term 1965, 384 U.S. 737 , 86 S.Ct. 1761 , 16 L.Ed.2d 895 .) We do not understand that Escobedo changed the totality of the | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2013“Under the totality of the circumstances test, a deficiency in one area can be compensated for by a strong showing of another or by ‘some other indicia of reliability.’” Ford, 21 S.W.3d at 35 (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 ). 2013“Under the totality of the circumstances test, a deficiency in one area can be compensated for by a strong showing of another or by ‘some other indicia of reliability.’” Ford, 21 S.W.3d at 35 (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 ). | 1 | 9 |
State v. Fordgreen2 sentences2017“Under the totality of the circumstances test, a deficiency in one area can be compensated for by a strong showing of another or by some other indicia of reliability.” Id. at 34 (internal quotation omitted). 2013“Under the totality of the circumstances test, a deficiency in one area can be compensated for by a strong showing of another or by ‘some other indicia of reliability.’” Ford, 21 S.W.3d at 35 (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Penningtongreen2 sentences1991In State v. Pennington, 642 S.W.2d 646 (Mo.1982), our supreme court reiterated several well-established principles governing the determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant. 1987While the review for a “substantial basis” of probable cause under the totality of the circumstances test contemplates great deference to the magistrate’s decision, State v. Pennington, 642 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Mo.1982), the magistrate is not allowed unfettered discretion. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lanegreen1 sentence2025Yet, when applying the totality of the circumstances test, “the only evidence to be considered is that adduced at the [Chapter 491] hearing.” State v. Sprinkle, 122 S.W.3d 652, 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); see also State v. Lane, 415 S.W.3d 740, 751 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (holding “[t]his observation is consistent with the express language used in section 491.075.1(1), that the out-of-court statements are admissible if ‘[t]he court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content and circumstances of the 10 statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability [.] | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sprinklegreen1 sentence2025Yet, when applying the totality of the circumstances test, “the only evidence to be considered is that adduced at the [Chapter 491] hearing.” State v. Sprinkle, 122 S.W.3d 652, 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); see also State v. Lane, 415 S.W.3d 740, 751 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (holding “[t]his observation is consistent with the express language used in section 491.075.1(1), that the out-of-court statements are admissible if ‘[t]he court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content and circumstances of the 10 statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability [.] | 1 | 1 |
Hallquist v. Middengreen2 sentences2025“Another public policy consideration is whether a defendant has ‘some right or obligation to control the activity that presents the danger of injury.’” Id. at 436 (quoting Burrell ex rel. 2025Totality of the Circumstances Even under the totality of the circumstances test, Defendants do not owe Plaintiffs a duty to protect them from the negligent incursion of a third party (1) under a foreseeability analysis and (2) because public policy does not support imposing a duty under these facts. “[W]hether a duty exists in a particular case depends on several public policy considerations including ‘the foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it and the consequences of placing that burden on defendant.’” Scales, 615 S.W.3d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morgangreen1 sentence2021Id. at 430-31 ; State v. Morgan, 366 S.W.3d 565, 576-77 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kuhngreen1 sentence2005This totality of the circumstances test was followed in State v. Kuhn, where the court *279 found that bringing a child to a home containing wow-dangerous chemicals did not present substantial risk, although the chemicals included some of the materials needed to make methamphetamine. 115 S.W.3d 845, 849-50 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi | 1 | 1 |
Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.green2 sentences2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi 2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi | 1 | 1 |
Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass'ngreen2 sentences2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi 2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi | 1 | 1 |
Lechmanski v. Marine Midland Bankgreen2 sentences2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi 2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi | 1 | 1 |
Ellis v. Luxbury Hotels, Inc.green2 sentences2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi 2002“The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider.” Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). “[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to ‘all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a criminal act was foreseeable.’ ” Ellis v. Lwcbury Hotels, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 359, 360-61 (Ind.1999) (quoting Delta Ta | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Redmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gardnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Abdullah v. Arkansasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grays v. Hughesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. United Statesred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dodsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re SM
green
2 sentences2002However, in In re S.M., this court, after discussing the various approaches used in other jurisdictions, adopted the totality of the circumstances test for deciding what constitutes a temporary absence under § 452.445(4). 938 S.W.2d at 918 . 2000"In comparing the different approaches to resolving the temporary absence issue, the totality of the circumstances test is best suited to adequately deal with the variety of situations which occur....” Id. at 918 . 12 . | 2 | 2000–2002 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences1988Moreover, George’s in-court identification of defendant was reliable under the totality of the circumstances test of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 1988Moreover, George’s in-court identification of defendant was reliable under the totality of the circumstances test of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1968For trials after June 13, 1966, Miranda v. State of Arizona, October Term 1965, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , imposes new and different rules. 1968For trials after June 13, 1966, Miranda v. State of Arizona, October Term 1965, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , imposes new and different rules. | 2 | 1966–1968 |
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Rickey Bates
green
2 sentences2023Id. (citing Bates, 464 S.W.3d at 263 ). 2023Id. (citing Bates, 464 S.W.3d at 263 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 782 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In the Interest of N.J.K. v. Juvenile Officer
green
1 sentence2011N.J.K., 139 S.W.3d at 256 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Burrell
green
1 sentence2005Burrell, 160 S.W.3d at 802 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Porras
green
1 sentence2003Porras, 84 S.W.3d at 157 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Madden v. C & K Barbecue Carryout, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002But see Timothy A. Reuschel, Here's Your Burrito and Watch Your Back: Does Missouri Really Want to Hold Businesses Liable for Attacks on Patrons?, 65 Mo. L.Rev. 255, 258 (2000) ("In Madden , the court did not explicitly adopt the `totality of the circumstances' test or the `prior similar incidents' test for foreseeability.") Although Madden considered prior similar incidents, it used language implying a totality of the circumstances test ("the facts and circumstances of a given case") Madden, 758 S.W.2d at 62 . 2002But see Timothy A. Reuschel, Here’s Your Burrito and Watch Your Back: Does Missouri Really Want to Hold Businesses Liable for Attacks on Patrons?, 65 Mo. L.Rev. 255, 258 (2000) (“In Madden , the court did not explicitly adopt the ‘totality of the circumstances’ test or the ‘prior similar incidents’ test for foreseeability.”) Although Madden considered prior similar incidents, it used language implying a totality of the circumstances test (“the facts and circumstances of a given case”) Madden, 758 S.W.2d at 62 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership
green
2 sentences2002To the extent the concurrence is saying those facts and circumstances cannot be considered, we disagree. [13] "The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider." Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). "[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to `all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a crimi 2002“The totality of the circumstances standard encompasses all the factors a reasonably prudent person would consider.” Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). “[I]n determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports the imposition of a duty, a court must look to ‘all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a criminal act was foreseeable.’ ” Ellis v. Lwcbury Hotels, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 359, 360-61 (Ind.1999) (quoting Delta Ta | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Kelley
green
1 sentence1999“In determining whether a child’s out-of-court statements possess ‘sufficient indicia of reliability’ for the purposes of Sec. 491.075, Missouri courts have adopted a totality of the circumstances test that includes the consideration of several, non-ex- elusive factors which include (1) spontaneity and consistent repetition; (2) the mental state of the declarant; and (3) the lack of a motive to fabricate.” Kelley, 945 S.W.2d at 614 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| United States v. Miller green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Florida v. Royer
green
2 sentences1997Stevens, 845 S.W.2d at 129 ; Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 493 n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 1819 , 1321 n. 2, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 , 233 n. 2 (1983). 1997Stevens, 845 S.W.2d at 129 ; Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 493 n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 1819 , 1321 n. 2, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 , 233 n. 2 (1983). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Worrel green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Sokolow
green
2 sentences1997Id.; Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9-10 , 109 S.Ct. at 1586-87 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 11-12 . “[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the particular conduct is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty,’ but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of nonerimi-nal acts.” Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 10 , 109 S.Ct. at 1587 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 12 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983)). 1997Id.; Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9-10 , 109 S.Ct. at 1586-87 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 11-12 . “[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the particular conduct is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty,’ but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of nonerimi-nal acts.” Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 10 , 109 S.Ct. at 1587 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 12 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence1997Stevens, 845 S.W.2d at 129 ; Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 493 n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 1819 , 1321 n. 2, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 , 233 n. 2 (1983). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Idaho v. Wright green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Horsey green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Tolliver green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| In Interest of ADR green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| In Re KWB green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.
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.