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.
37 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kerr v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences1999Kerr v. Jennings, 886 S.W.2d 117, 123 (Mo.App.1994). 1999Kerr v. Jennings, 886 S.W.2d 117, 123 (Mo.App.1994). | 7 | 7 |
McAllister v. McAllistergreen2 sentences2022The Court finds that some of the testimony of Petitioner was not credible.” Standard of Review “[T]he trial court’s decision in a court-tried case is presumed correct, and the appellant has the burden of showing error.” McAllister v. McAllister, 101 S.W.3d 287, 291 (Mo.App.E.D.2003). 2021Appellant’s third point is denied. 5 “[T]he trial court’s decision in a court-tried case is presumed correct, and the appellant has the burden of showing error.” McAllister v. McAllister, 101 S.W.3d 287, 291 (Mo.App. 2003). | 4 | 4 |
In Re the Marriage of Shields v. Shieldsgreen2 sentences2011“We will not reverse the trial court’s judgment if there is no showing of prejudice as a result of that judgment.’ ” Murphey, 207 *842 S.W.3d at 688 (quoting Shields v. Shields, 59 S.W.3d 658, 660 (Mo.App.2001)). 2009We will not reverse the trial court's judgment if there is no showing of prejudice as a result of that judgment." Shields v. Shields, 59 S.W.3d 658, 660 (Mo.App. | 3 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Hillisgreen2 sentences2022We must affirm the judgment in a dissolution case “if there is substantial evidence to support it, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and it neither erroneously declares nor erroneously applies the law.” In re Marriage of Hillis, 313 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2010). 2014We must affirm the judgment in a dissolution case “if there is substantial evidence to support it, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and it neither erroneously declares nor erroneously applies the law.” In re Marriage of Hillis, 313 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2010). | 2 | 2 |
King v. Kinggreen2 sentences2006McAllister v. McAllister, 101 S.W.3d 287, 291 (Mo.App.2003); King v. King, 976 S.W.2d 49, 52 (Mo.App.1998). ‘We will not reverse the trial court’s judgment if there is no showing of prejudice as a result of that judgment.” Shields v. Shields, 59 S.W.3d 658, 660 (Mo.App.2001); McAllister, 101 S.W.3d at 291 . 2003King v. King, 976 S.W.2d 49, 52 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Isagreen2 sentences2001State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 884 (Mo. banc 1993). 2001State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 884 (Mo. banc 1993). | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Brewergreen2 sentences1986In re Marriage of Brewer, 592 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Mo.App.1979). 1986In re Marriage of Brewer, 592 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Mo.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Hankegreen2 sentences2004Id. 2002Walker v. Hanke, 992 S.W.2d 925, 930 [2] (Mo.App.1999). | 1 | 2 |
Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C.green1 sentence2020We reverse only if the instructional error resulted in prejudice that “materially affects the merits of the action.” The party challenging the instruction bears the burden of showing the instruction “misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice . . . .” Id. (citing Fleshner v. Pepose, 304 S.W.3d 81, 90-91 (Mo. banc 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Baumgart v. Baumgartgreen1 sentence2011Furthermore, “the trial court’s decision in this court-tried case is presumed correct,” and Mother, as the appealing party, “bears the burden of showing error.” Murphey, 207 S.W.3d at 683; see also Baumgart v. Baumgart, 944 S.W.2d 572, 575-76 (Mo.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Kirkwood v. Kirkwoodgreen1 sentence2009Kirkwood v. Kirkwood, 77 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2006State v. Anderson, 76 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Mo. banc 2002). 2006State v. Anderson, 76 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Mo. banc 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2006E.D.1986) (“Where an erroneous ruling on a motion to suppress physical evidence is found to be prejudicial, the case is ordinarily reversed and remanded for a new trial.”) See also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (“[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”) The state bears the burden of showing the error to be harmless. 2006E.D.1986) (“Where an erroneous ruling on a motion to suppress physical evidence is found to be prejudicial, the case is ordinarily reversed and remanded for a new trial.”) See also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (“[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”) The state bears the burden of showing the error to be harmless. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). 2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). 2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grantgreen2 sentences2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). 2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. Stategreen2 sentences2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). 2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). 2002State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223-24 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 529 (Mo. banc 1999); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Grant, 784 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schellgreen1 sentence2001State v. Schell, 843 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Browning v. Browninggreen2 sentences1998Browning v. Browning, 947 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Mo.App.1997). 1998Browning, 947 S.W.2d at 108 . | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1992Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404 , 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1242 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424, 439 (1977). 1992Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404 , 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1242 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424, 439 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hankinsgreen1 sentence1991State v. Hankins, 612 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richardsgreen1 sentence1979State v. Richards, 536 S.W.2d 779, 788 [13] (Mo. App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jessica Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2019Id. | 2 | 2019–2022 |
Hayes v. Price
green
1 sentence2025“The party challenging the instruction has the burden of showing the instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, thereby resulting in prejudice.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke
green
1 sentence2021Westbrooke, 151 S.W.3d at 367 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hervey v. Missouri Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2020We reverse only if the instructional error resulted in prejudice that “materially affects the merits of the action.” The party challenging the instruction bears the burden of showing the instruction “misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice . . . .” Id. (citing Fleshner v. Pepose, 304 S.W.3d 81, 90-91 (Mo. banc 2010)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Watson v. Mense
green
1 sentence2010In addition, we must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses and the trial court may “believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness.” Watson, 298 S.W.3d at 526 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Blaylock v. Clarida
green
1 sentence2010“We presume the trial court’s decision is correct, and the appellant has the burden of showing error.” Blaylock, 987 S.W.2d at 21 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Siedler v. Tamar Realty Company
green
1 sentence1979Siedler v. Tamar Realty Company, 491 S.W.2d 566 (Mo.App.1973). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Patton v. United States red | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Bradley v. Reppell green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Ittner v. Hughes neutral | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.