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.
6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stallings v. Washington Universitygreen2 sentences2007Stallings, 794 S.W.2d at 270-71 . 1992See Stallings v. Washington Univ., 794 S.W.2d at 271 ; Hopkins, Expert Testimony: New Rules, New Questions, 46 J.Mo.Bar, April-May 1990, at 175, 180. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2021Gardner v. Wright, 562 S.W.3d 311, 319 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Davies v. Carter Carburetor, Division ACF Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2004Prior to the enactment of section 490.065, “[w]hen the reasons for the expert’s opinion ‘[were] based in part on hearsay, as far as the witness [was] concerned, the accepted and proper way to present in evidence [the] opinion of [the] expert witness [was] to present competent evidence of those facts from some proper source, and then submit them to the expert witness in a hypothetical question along with other relevant matter.’ ” Id. (quoting Davies v. Carter Carburetor, Inc., 429 S.W.2d 738, 751 (Mo.1968)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes
green
2 sentences2016Although Heim and Bloomfield were decided before the enactment of section 490.065 in 1989, we find the pronouncements of -law therein consistent with the statute’s requirement that an expert be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education[.]" Cf, Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App. 2016He further expressed his specific familiarity with both the Link’s Landing and BOLO sales, including property details and the amounts for which they sold. 4 Although Heim and Bloomfield were decided before the enactment of section 490.065 in 1989, we find the pronouncements of law therein consistent with the statute’s requirement that an expert be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education[.]” Cf. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Glidewell v. S.C. Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Prior to the enactment of section 490.065, “[w]hen the reasons for the expert’s opinion ‘[were] based in part on hearsay, as far as the witness [was] concerned, the accepted and proper way to present in evidence [the] opinion of [the] expert witness [was] to present competent evidence of those facts from some proper source, and then submit them to the expert witness in a hypothetical question along with other relevant matter.’ ” Id. (quoting Davies v. Carter Carburetor, Inc., 429 S.W.2d 738, 751 (Mo.1968)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.