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.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pirtle v. Cookgreen2 sentences2014The party seeking correction must prove that: (1) the correction does not include any “exercise of judicial discretion” because “any such change constitutes a change in the court’s judgment,” not merely a correction of a clerical error, and (2) the clerical error is “discernible from the record.” Id. (citations omitted). 1998“A clerical error is an error made in the recording of a judgment; therefore, the correction of a clerical error conforms the record to the judgment of the court.” Pirtle v. Cook, 956 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Mo.1997). | 1 | 2 |
Childers v. Stategreen1 sentence2014The evidence needed to prove the error or omission is discernible from the record is broad, as long as it can “in some way show, either from the judge’s minutes, the clerk’s entries, or some paper in the cause, the facts authorizing such [nunc pro tunc] entries.” Childers v. State, 502 S.W.2d 249, 251 (Mo.1973). | 1 | 1 |
First National Bank of Collinsville v. Goldfarbgreen2 sentences1997See First Nat'l Bank v. Goldfarb, 527 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Mo.App.1975). 1997See First Nat’l Bank v. Goldfarb, 527 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Harrison v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. 686, 689 (1847)(stating that power to correct or amend judgments where clerk has failed to enter judgment rendered may be more properly denominated the correction of a clerical error or omission). 1997See Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. 686, 689 (1847)(stating that power to correct or amend judgments where clerk has failed to enter judgment rendered may be more properly denominated the correction of a clerical error or omission). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanly v. Dewes
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
Hickman v. Barnes
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
Mullanphy v. Phillipson
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
State v. Clark
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
Robertson v. Neal
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
Davison v. Davison
neutral
2 sentences1932This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l.c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l.c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Section 1277, Revised Statutes 1919 (Sec. 822, R.S. 1929). 1921This power has been recognized from the earliest times and frequent instances of the exercise of same are found in our reports. [Hanly v. Dewes, 1 Mo. 16 ; Hickman v. Barnes, 1 Mo. 156 ; Mullanphy v. Phillipson, 1 Mo. 188 ; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. l. c. 363; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. l. c. 689; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432 ; Stacker v. Cooper Circuit Court, 25 Mo. 401 ; Robertson v. Neal, 60 Mo. 579 ; Davison v. *538 Davison, 207 Mo. 702 .] Such amendments as are here authorized, are within the purview of the statute, Sec. 1277, Revised Statutes 1919. | 2 | 1921–1932 |
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.