36 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1878–2024 2 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. Thompsongreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 401 S.W.3d 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fletchergreen2 sentences2021“Nor is it limited to conduct causing or threatening bodily injury.” Id. 2021The limitation on the defense “is not confined to a crime involving conduct causing or threatening bodily injury or an offense in which such conduct is an element.” State v. Fletcher, 792 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990) (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Woodall v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2017The Court upheld the trial court's limitations on such inquiries because such questions were "to have jurors indicate in advance or commit themselves to certain ideas and views upon final submission of the case...." Id. at 407 ; see Woodall v. Commonwealth , 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2001) (affirming the trial court's limitation of defense counsel's questions concerning whether the jurors could consider a low I.Q. score as mitigating evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Smithgreen1 sentence2007Id. at 337, 338 ; Taylor, 73 S.W.3d at 621-22 ; Badami, 630 S.W.2d at 179 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 , 726 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. State, 179 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Mo.App.2005); Cook, 156 S.W.3d at 420 ; Daugherty , 116 S.W.3d 616, 617 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Daugherty v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 , 726 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. State, 179 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Mo.App.2005); Cook, 156 S.W.3d at 420 ; Daugherty , 116 S.W.3d 616, 617 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Jaynesgreen1 sentence2006Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 , 726 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. State, 179 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Mo.App.2005); Cook, 156 S.W.3d at 420 ; Daugherty , 116 S.W.3d 616, 617 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Killpack v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Co.green1 sentence1997Co., 861 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Mo.App.1993): The limit of liability as applicable to each person is the maximum limits of the Company’s liability for all damages, including damages for care or loss of service or consortium, because of bodily injuries sustained by one person as a result of any one accident. | 1 | 1 |
Donald Robert Caldwell v. State of Minnesotagreen1 sentence1979Caldwell v. Minnesota, supra, at 273; State v. Kirk, 510 S.W.2d 196, 200 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kirkgreen1 sentence1979Caldwell v. Minnesota, supra, at 273; State v. Kirk, 510 S.W.2d 196, 200 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sherrillgreen2 sentences1974Defendant asserts: “In the testing the sufficiency of evidence, the facts will be looked at in their most favorable light to the State, subject to the limitation that the rule requires the consideration of all the facts shown by the State.” In State v. Sherrill, 496 S.W.2d 321, 323 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1973), this court said, “Because of defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charge and jury verdict against him it is necessary to detail the evidence relied upon by the state. 1974Defendant asserts: "In the testing the sufficiency of evidence, the facts will be looked at in their most favorable light to the State, subject to the limitation that the rule requires the consideration of all the facts shown by the State." In State v. Sherrill, 496 S.W.2d 321, 323 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1973), this court said, "Because of defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charge and jury verdict against him it is necessary to detail the evidence relied upon by the state. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Railways Co.green2 sentences1951Co., 247 Mo. 326, 354 , 152 S. W. 362, 368 [6], 152 S. W. 374 : “But mark the limitation to the rule. ‘Where, however, an assignment is made of subsisting property,’ * * ‘an incidental right to sue for fraud will pass by the assignment.’ ” See Bispham, Principles of Equity, *472 10th Ed., § 166; 6 C. 1951Co., 247 Mo. 326, 354 , 152 S. W. 362, 368 [6], 152 S. W. 374 : “But mark the limitation to the rule. ‘Where, however, an assignment is made of subsisting property,’ * * ‘an incidental right to sue for fraud will pass by the assignment.’ ” See Bispham, Principles of Equity, *472 10th Ed., § 166; 6 C. | 1 | 1 |
| Watson v. Harmongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riggins v. O'Brien
neutral
2 sentences1892Riggins v. O'Brien, 34 Mo. App. 613 .” We concur fully in what Judge Thompson says and only add that in this case the record recites the existence of the necessary fact, and it is not necessary to invoke the presumption of right acting. 1890Riggins v. O'Brien, 34 Mo. App. 613 . | 2 | 1890–1892 |
Ward v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2017The Court upheld the trial court's limitations on such inquiries because such questions were "to have jurors indicate in advance or commit themselves to certain ideas and views upon final submission of the case...." Id. at 407 ; see Woodall v. Commonwealth , 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2001) (affirming the trial court's limitation of defense counsel's questions concerning whether the jurors could consider a low I.Q. score as mitigating evidence). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Schaefer v. Estate of Magel
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Wallace
red
1 sentence2007Id. at 337, 338 ; Taylor, 73 S.W.3d at 621-22 ; Badami, 630 S.W.2d at 179 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State Ex Rel. Badami v. Gaertner
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 337, 338 ; Taylor, 73 S.W.3d at 621-22 ; Badami, 630 S.W.2d at 179 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mansfield v. State
green
1 sentence2006Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 , 726 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. State, 179 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Mo.App.2005); Cook, 156 S.W.3d at 420 ; Daugherty , 116 S.W.3d 616, 617 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Cook v. State
green
1 sentence2006Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 , 726 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. State, 179 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Mo.App.2005); Cook, 156 S.W.3d at 420 ; Daugherty , 116 S.W.3d 616, 617 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2006Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 , 726 n. 2 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. State, 179 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Mo.App.2005); Cook, 156 S.W.3d at 420 ; Daugherty , 116 S.W.3d 616, 617 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rombach v. Rombach
green
1 sentence1999And, as the court noted, “Moreover, if mere evidence were the test, the trial court would be left with no discretion to ferret out cases where some evidence might arguably exist going to the issues of abuse or neglect, but the evidence is too ambiguous, vague, speculative or remote to justify such an action.” Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Peters v. Farmers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1997Co., Inc., 726 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. banc 1987), the supreme court found the following limitation clause in a Farmers policy to be unambiguous: To pay all sums which the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle would be legally responsible to pay as damages to the insured because of bodily injury sustained by the insured ... | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Oldham's Farm Sausage Co. v. Salco, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992Measuring the limitation clause against the comments to 400.2-719(3), the court found that the limitation failed to allow a "minimum adequate remedy." Id. at 183 . 1992Measuring the limitation clause against the comments to 400.2-719(3), the court found that the limitation failed to allow a “minimum adequate remedy.” Id. at 183 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Webb v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Timmons v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1977Plaintiff relies upon Timmons v. Kurn, 231 Mo.App. 421 , 100 S.W.2d 952 (Mo.App.1935) which permitted a recovery under a res ipsa submission when there was a considerable amount of evidence tending to show negligence. 1977Plaintiff relies upon Timmons v. Kurn, 231 Mo.App. 421 , 100 S.W.2d 952 (Mo.App.1935) which permitted a recovery under a res ipsa submission when there was a considerable amount of evidence tending to show negligence. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Moss v. Mindlin's, Inc.
green
1 sentence1976We are satisfied that the court exercised its discretion wisely in excusing this juror.” Plaintiffs also rely on Moss v. Mindlin’s, Inc., 301 S.W.2d 761 [9-11] (Mo.1957). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Glick Ex Rel. McGinty v. Ballentine Produce Inc.
green
2 sentences1973Respondent also contends that allowance of punitive damages would circumvent the limitation on wrongful death recoveries, and be a double award, since Glick v. Ballentine Produce, 396 S.W.2d 609 (Mo.1965), sanctioned increased damages, up to the statutory limit because of aggravated circumstances. 1973Respondent also contends that allowance of punitive damages would circumvent the limitation on wrongful death recoveries, and be a double award, since Glick v. Ballentine Produce, 396 S.W.2d 609 (Mo.1965), sanctioned increased damages, up to the statutory limit because of aggravated circumstances. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Heidorn v. City of Kirkwood
neutral
1 sentence1951Co., 247 Mo. 326, 354 , 152 S. W. 362, 368 [6], 152 S. W. 374 : “But mark the limitation to the rule. ‘Where, however, an assignment is made of subsisting property,’ * * ‘an incidental right to sue for fraud will pass by the assignment.’ ” See Bispham, Principles of Equity, *472 10th Ed., § 166; 6 C. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| People Ex Rel. Percival v. . Cram green | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Hicks v. State
neutral
2 sentences1945Hicks v. State, 165 Ind. 440 , 75 N.E. 641 [4]; Thompson v. State (Ind.), 58 N.E. 112 , 113; Tyrrell v. State, 177 Ind. 14 , 97 N.E. 14 [3]; Annotation, 140 A.L.R. 164 . 1945Hicks v. State, 165 Ind. 440 , 75 N.E. 641 [4]; Thompson v. State (Ind.), 58 N.E. 112 , 113; Tyrrell v. State, 177 Ind. 14 , 97 N.E. 14 [3]; Annotation, 140 A.L.R. 164 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Tyrrel v. State
green
2 sentences1945Hicks v. State, 165 Ind. 440 , 75 N.E. 641 [4]; Thompson v. State (Ind.), 58 N.E. 112 , 113; Tyrrell v. State, 177 Ind. 14 , 97 N.E. 14 [3]; Annotation, 140 A.L.R. 164 . 1945Hicks v. State, 165 Ind. 440 , 75 N.E. 641 [4]; Thompson v. State (Ind.), 58 N.E. 112 , 113; Tyrrell v. State, 177 Ind. 14 , 97 N.E. 14 [3]; Annotation, 140 A.L.R. 164 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Pfeiffer v. Suss neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Madison County Bank v. Suman's Administrator neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Van Wagner v. Slane neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Britian v. Fender neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Forrister v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Priest v. Kansas City Life Insurance neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Priest v. Kansas City Life Insurance neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Powell v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York green | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Home Life Insurance v. Pierce neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Fairbanks v. Long neutral | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Charles v. Morrow neutral | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Wilson v. State of North Carolina green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Zoll v. Carnahan neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Schmucker v. Sibert green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Lord v. Morris green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| New York Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Covert neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Glover v. Henderson green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Royal Remedy & Extract Co. v. Gregory Grocer Co. neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Charles v. McCune neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Burton v. Stevens green | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.