35 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1889–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2003“Mistrial is a drastic remedy to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied.” State v. Sanders, 903 S.W.2d 234, 238 (Mo.App. 2000Granting a mistrial is a “ ‘drastic remedy to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied.’ ” State v. Jones, 7 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting State v. Sanders, 903 S.W.2d 234, 238 (Mo.App.1995)). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2025“A mistrial is a drastic remedy which is to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied.” State v. Norris, 237 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (citing State v. Davis, 122 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)). 2009“Mistrial is a drastic remedy to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied,” id. (internal quotation omitted), and the trial court is in the best position to determine any prejudicial effect a challenged comment might have, as well as which remedial measures, if any, are needed. | 4 | 6 |
Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc.green2 sentences2021A mistrial is a drastic remedy and “should be reserved for the most grievous error where prejudice cannot otherwise be removed.” Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202, 208 (Mo. banc 1991). 1995“Mistrials are a most drastic remedy and should be reserved for the most grievous error where prejudice cannot otherwise be removed.” Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202, 208 (Mo. banc 1991). | 3 | 4 |
Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospitalgreen2 sentences2020Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 867 . 2009Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852, 867 (Mo. banc 1993). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Norrisgreen2 sentences2025“A mistrial is a drastic remedy which is to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied.” State v. Norris, 237 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (citing State v. Davis, 122 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)). 2013Appellant challenges this refusal to grant a mistrial, “a drastic remedy which is to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied.” State v. Norris, 237 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Mo.App.2007). | 2 | 2 |
Saint Louis University v. Gearygreen2 sentences2021Louis Univ. v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Mo. banc 2009)). 5 As a general rule, evidence of other crimes is inadmissible if it is offered to show that a defendant is a person of bad character or has a propensity to commit crimes. 2020Louis Univ. v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Mo. banc 2009). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leisuregreen2 sentences1998State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560, 571 (Mo.App. 1997State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560, 571 (Mo.App.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Croxton v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Croxton v. State, 293 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). 2014Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Carrgreen1 sentence2025“The court should grant a mistrial only in the case of a grievous error, which cannot be remedied otherwise.” State v. Whalen, 697 S.W.3d 858 , 862 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting State v. Carr, 50 S.W.3d 848, 856 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Carlos Perrygreen2 sentences2015I thought I could do this." We begin by noting that "[a] mistrial is a drastic remedy to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied." State v. Perry, 447 S.W.3d 749, 754-55 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 2015This court "review[s] the trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial on an abuse of discretion standard because the trial court is in a superior position to determine the effect of improper remarks, and what, if anything, must be done to cure the problem." Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2000Granting a mistrial is a “ ‘drastic remedy to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances when there is a grievous error which cannot otherwise be remedied.’ ” State v. Jones, 7 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting State v. Sanders, 903 S.W.2d 234, 238 (Mo.App.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Galindogreen1 sentence1999State v. Galindo, 973 S.W.2d 574, 580 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Harden v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1995State v. Durbin, 885 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Mo.App.1992); see also State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 975 , 109 S.Ct. 515 , 102 L.Ed.2d 550 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sidebottomgreen1 sentence1995State v. Durbin, 885 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Mo.App.1992); see also State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 975 , 109 S.Ct. 515 , 102 L.Ed.2d 550 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Missouri v. Presleygreen1 sentence1995State v. Durbin, 885 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Mo.App.1992); see also State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 975 , 109 S.Ct. 515 , 102 L.Ed.2d 550 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burgessgreen2 sentences1992Burgess, supra, 800 S.W.2d at 746 [7]. 1992Burgess, supra, 800 S.W.2d at 746 [7]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Silinzygreen1 sentence1990State v. Silinzy, 621 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp.
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2001“To establish manifest abuse, there must be a grievous error where prejudice cannot otherwise be removed.” Id. | 3 | 2000–2009 |
Canada v. State
green
1 sentence2024“To establish a manifest abuse, there must be a grievous error where prejudice otherwise cannot be removed.” Id. (quoting Sherrer v. Boston Scientific Corp., 609 S.W.3d 697 , 705 (Mo. banc 2020)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jaeger
green
1 sentence1889State v. Rothschild, 68 Mo. 52 ; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173 ; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547 . | 1 | 1889–1889 |
State v. Rothschild
neutral
1 sentence1889State v. Rothschild, 68 Mo. 52 ; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173 ; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547 . | 1 | 1889–1889 |
State v. Martin
neutral
1 sentence1889State v. Rothschild, 68 Mo. 52 ; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173 ; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547 . | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.