transaction rule in Missouri

38 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1870–2017 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.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Treadwaygreen mo · 1977 · cited in 11 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1979–1992 2 sentences 1984“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several 511 offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978), meaning a defendant can be convicted of several offenses arising from the same set of facts without violation of double jeopardy. 1983*“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, at 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978).	8	11
State v. Cartergreen moctapp · 1976 · cited in 6 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1977–1993 2 sentences 1993State v. Carter, 535 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Williams, 815 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Mo.App.1991). 1977But as stated in State v. Carter, 535 S.W.2d 537 (Mo.App.1976) l.c. 538: “In the determination of double jeopardy, Missouri does not follow the same transaction rule, but applies the separate or several offense rule.	5	6
State v. Childsgreen moctapp · 1984 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017 2 sentences 2017"In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule." State v. Jackson , 410 S.W.3d 204 , 215 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting State v. Childs , 684 S.W.2d 508 , 510-11 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) ). "[A] defendant can be convicted of several offenses arising from the same set of facts without violation of double jeopardy." Id. (quoting Childs , 684 S.W.2d at 511 ). 2017"In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule." State v. Jackson , 410 S.W.3d 204 , 215 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting State v. Childs , 684 S.W.2d 508 , 510-11 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) ). "[A] defendant can be convicted of several offenses arising from the same set of facts without violation of double jeopardy." Id. (quoting Childs , 684 S.W.2d at 511 ).	2	3
State v. Bowlesgreen mo · 1962 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976 2 sentences 1976State v. Bowles, 360 S.W.2d 706 (Mo.1962). 1976State v. Bowles, 360 S.W.2d 706, 707 [1] (Mo.1962).	2	3
State v. Fostergreen moctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–2007 2 sentences 2007State v. Morrow, supra, at 390. “[M]ultiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact committed separate crimes.” State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 66-67 (Mo.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 994 , 113 S.Ct. 1607 , 123 L.Ed.2d 169 (1993). 1994Missouri, however, follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule. [Mjultiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact committed separate crimes.” State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 66 [13,14] (Mo.App.1992) (citations omitted).	2	2
State v. Motongreen mo · 1972 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1992 2 sentences 1992State v. Treadway, supra, 558 S.W.2d [646] at 651 [Mo. banc 1977]; State v. Carter, 535 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Moton, 476 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Mo. 1972) (robbery of two persons — convicted of two robberies in the first degree — no violation of double jeopardy). 1988State v. Treadway, supra, 558 S.W.2d at 651 ; State v. Carter, 535 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Moton, 476 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Mo.1972) (robbery of two persons — convicted of two robberies in the first degree — no violation of double jeopardy).	2	2
State v. Garnettgreen moctapp · 2009 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011 2 sentences 2011State v. Garnett, 298 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Mo.App. 2010“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” Id.	1	2
State v. Morrowgreen moctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007State v. Morrow, supra, at 390. “[M]ultiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact committed separate crimes.” State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 66-67 (Mo.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 994 , 113 S.Ct. 1607 , 123 L.Ed.2d 169 (1993).	1	1
State v. McTushgreen mo · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998State v. Heslop, 842 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 2369 , 124 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993); State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1992).	1	1
State v. Heslopgreen mo · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998State v. Heslop, 842 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 2369 , 124 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993); State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1992).	1	1
State v. Stelbackygreen moctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 1 sentence 1993State v. Carter, 535 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Williams, 815 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Mo.App.1991).	1	1
State v. Lulkowskigreen moctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992E.g., State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978); State v. Lulkowski, 721 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo.App.1986). “[Mjultiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact com *67 mitted separate crimes.” State v. Treadway at 651.	1	1
Speck v. Union Electric Co.red mo · 1987 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988Id. at 20 [1].	1	1
McDonald v. Stategreen moctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988McDonald v. State, 734 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Mo.App.1987).	1	1
State v. Chambersgreen mo · 1975 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 1 sentence 1977In State v. Chambers, 524 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Mo.banc 1975), our supreme court adopted the separate offense rule, not the same transaction rule.	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 (21)

Case	Cited	Years
North ex rel. Northwest Civic Ass'n v. Cates green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 1984“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several 511 offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978), meaning a defendant can be convicted of several offenses arising from the same set of facts without violation of double jeopardy. 1983*“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, at 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978).	8	1983–1992
Mattison v. Leeke green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 1984“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several 511 offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978), meaning a defendant can be convicted of several offenses arising from the same set of facts without violation of double jeopardy. 1983*“In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule.” State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, at 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978).	8	1983–1992
State v. Jackson green moctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2017"In determining double jeopardy, Missouri follows the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule." State v. Jackson , 410 S.W.3d 204 , 215 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting State v. Childs , 684 S.W.2d 508 , 510-11 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) ). "[A] defendant can be convicted of several offenses arising from the same set of facts without violation of double jeopardy." Id. (quoting Childs , 684 S.W.2d at 511 ).	1	2017–2017
State v. Barber green moctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2009Id.	1	2009–2009
Schofield v. State green moctapp · 1988 1 sentence 2009Id. at 466 .	1	2009–2009
Vorchetto v. Sappenfield green moctapp · 1929 2 sentences 2007Also see Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168 (Ia.1990), where a buyer of stock in a bank that closed 15 years after the transaction could not claim lack of consideration to avoid remaining payments on the promissory note. . 401 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App.1966). . 223 Mo.App. 460 , 14 S.W.2d 685 (1929). . 2007Also see Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168 (Ia.1990), where a buyer of stock in a bank that closed 15 years after the transaction could not claim lack of consideration to avoid remaining payments on the promissory note. . 401 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App.1966). . 223 Mo.App. 460 , 14 S.W.2d 685 (1929). .	1	2007–2007
Johnson v. Dodgen green iowa · 1990 2 sentences 2007Also see Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168 (Ia.1990), where a buyer of stock in a bank that closed 15 years after the transaction could not claim lack of consideration to avoid remaining payments on the promissory note. . 401 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App.1966). . 223 Mo.App. 460 , 14 S.W.2d 685 (1929). . 2007Also see Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168 (Ia. 1990), where a buyer of stock in a bank that closed 15 years after the transaction could not claim lack of consideration to avoid remaining payments on the promissory note. [3] 401 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App. 1966). [4] 223 Mo.App. 460 , 14 S.W.2d 685 (1929). [5] BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines "extinct" and "extinguished" as "no longer in existence or use," leaving no doubt regarding the legal effect of the bankruptcy court's order. [6] 3 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS section 7:21 (4th ed.). [7] Lindsay v. Sonora Gold Min. & Mill.	1	2007–2007
Byrd v. Beard green scotus · 1993 1 sentence 2007State v. Morrow, supra, at 390. “[M]ultiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact committed separate crimes.” State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 66-67 (Mo.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 994 , 113 S.Ct. 1607 , 123 L.Ed.2d 169 (1993).	1	2007–2007
Esnault v. Colorado green scotus · 1993 1 sentence 2007State v. Morrow, supra, at 390. “[M]ultiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact committed separate crimes.” State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 66-67 (Mo.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 994 , 113 S.Ct. 1607 , 123 L.Ed.2d 169 (1993).	1	2007–2007
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Kansas City Transit Co. green moctapp · 1966 2 sentences 2007Also see Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168 (Ia.1990), where a buyer of stock in a bank that closed 15 years after the transaction could not claim lack of consideration to avoid remaining payments on the promissory note. . 401 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App.1966). . 223 Mo.App. 460 , 14 S.W.2d 685 (1929). . 2007Also see Johnson v. Dodgen, 451 N.W.2d 168 (Ia. 1990), where a buyer of stock in a bank that closed 15 years after the transaction could not claim lack of consideration to avoid remaining payments on the promissory note. [3] 401 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App. 1966). [4] 223 Mo.App. 460 , 14 S.W.2d 685 (1929). [5] BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines "extinct" and "extinguished" as "no longer in existence or use," leaving no doubt regarding the legal effect of the bankruptcy court's order. [6] 3 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS section 7:21 (4th ed.). [7] Lindsay v. Sonora Gold Min. & Mill.	1	2007–2007
Ready v. Scopa green scotus · 1993 1 sentence 1998State v. Heslop, 842 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 2369 , 124 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993); State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1992).	1	1998–1998
Thomas v. Nagle green scotus · 1993 1 sentence 1998State v. Heslop, 842 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 2369 , 124 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993); State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1992).	1	1998–1998
Valdiosera-Godinez v. United States green scotus · 1993 1 sentence 1998State v. Heslop, 842 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 2369 , 124 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993); State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1992).	1	1998–1998
Detienne v. Peters green ohioctapp · 1945 2 sentences 1988One may purchase a cause of action at law and enforce all legal rights which go with it, but the right to appeal to the conscience of a court of equity cannot be bought or sold.’ ” De Tienne v.. Peters, 354 Mo. 166 , 188 S.W.2d 954 , 955 — 956[1, 3] (1945). 1988One may purchase a cause of action at law and enforce all legal rights which go with it, but the right to appeal to the conscience of a court of equity cannot be bought or sold.’ ” De Tienne v.. Peters, 354 Mo. 166 , 188 S.W.2d 954 , 955 — 956[1, 3] (1945).	1	1988–1988
Blockburger v. United States green scotus · 1931 2 sentences 1980Missouri has followed the separate offense rule rather than the same transaction rule as explicated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). 1980Missouri has followed the separate offense rule rather than the same transaction rule as explicated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).	1	1980–1980
Milliken-Helm Commission Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co. green · 1912	1	1928–1928
I. H. Van Idour & Co. v. Nelson neutral moctapp · 1895	1	1928–1928
Jacks Ex Rel. Jacks v. Link green · 1921	1	1924–1924
Miller v. Missouri Guarantee Savings & Building Ass'n neutral · 1900	1	1900–1900
United States v. MacDonald green scotus · 1867	1	1870–1870
The Ouachita Cotton neutral · 1868	1	1870–1870

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.041 (13) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.046 (8) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.050 (6) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.030 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.060 (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

NY 150 (1886–2026) GA 78 (1975–2020) AZ 74 (1947–2024) MI 56 (1927–2025) FL 55 (1953–2024) CT 51 (1961–2025) MT 38 (1996–2026) MO 38 (1870–2017) CA 29 (1915–2026) TX 26 (1886–2017) PA 21 (1894–2024) IL 20 (1874–2013) MD 16 (1922–2020) NJ 15 (1882–2024) LA 14 (1905–2015) WV 13 (1914–2021) OH 11 (1925–2021) AL 11 (1912–2005) OK 10 (1929–2004) OR 9 (1903–1998) TN 9 (1944–2009) NM 8 (1938–1991) MS 7 (1878–2016) CO 7 (1916–2004) NC 6 (1913–1989) VA 6 (1992–2008) AR 6 (1922–1979) IA 5 (1882–2016) WY 5 (1935–1991) ND 5 (1901–2002) DE 5 (1969–2025) IN 5 (1924–1999) KS 5 (1903–2019) WI 4 (1927–2019) ME 4 (1974–2021) MN 4 (1914–1997) NE 4 (1963–2025) WA 3 (1957–1995) SD 3 (1968–2023) MA 3 (1980–2017) AK 3 (1973–2026) NH 2 (2000–2014) ID 2 (1979–1997) KY 2 (1937–1951) HI 2 (1970–2001) NV 2 (2017–2017)

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