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.
28 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1886–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Hendrixgreen2 sentences2007The court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs.” In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Mo. banc 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2006In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Mo. banc 2006). | 2 | 2 |
Sexton v. Jenkins & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2006“Subject matter jurisdiction is a tribunal’s statutory authority to hear a particular kind of claim.” Id. “[W]hen the *169 question of subject matter jurisdiction has been fully litigated in the original forum, the issue cannot be retried in a subsequent action between the parties.” Id. at 274 . 2006“Subject matter jurisdiction is a tribunal’s statutory authority to hear a particular kind of claim.” Id. “[W]hen the *169 question of subject matter jurisdiction has been fully litigated in the original forum, the issue cannot be retried in a subsequent action between the parties.” Id. at 274 . | 1 | 2 |
Robinson v. Loxcreen Co.green1 sentence2020“The standard of review for this kind of challenge requires that [Claimant] engage in a specific analytical process.” Robinson v. Loxcreen Co., 571 S.W.3d 247, 250-51 (Mo.App. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Frederick Kakosgreen1 sentence2018As noted in Johnson , the federal cases more frequently identify the problem as a "duplicitous indictment" which spawns trial error when the duplicity is not corrected by proper jury instructions. 405 S.W.3d at 453-54 ; see United States v. Kakos, 483 F.3d 441 , 445 (6th Cir. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Blakely v. Blakelygreen1 sentence2009Blakely v. Blakely, 83 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. banc 2002). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Lambert v. Flynngreen2 sentences2006Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525 , 154 S.W.2d 52, 57 (banc 1941), this Court noted that subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the person “are grand subdivisions of jurisdiction.” “Subject matter jurisdiction is a tribunal’s statutory authority to hear a particular kind of claim.” Sexton v. Jenkins & Assocs., 152 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Mo. banc 2004). 2006Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525 , 154 S.W.2d 52, 57 (banc 1941), this Court noted that subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the person “are grand subdivisions of jurisdiction.” “Subject matter jurisdiction is a tribunal’s statutory authority to hear a particular kind of claim.” Sexton v. Jenkins & Assocs., 152 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Mo. banc 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co.green2 sentences2006“The court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs.” Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 335 Mo. 60 , 70 S.W.2d 890, 894 (banc 1934). 2006“The court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs.” Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 335 Mo. 60 , 70 S.W.2d 890, 894 (banc 1934). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Berkeley School Districtgreen1 sentence1997State, etc. v. Berkeley School Dist., 618 S.W.2d 195, 196-197 (Mo. App. E.D.1981) holds that it is insufficient for an appraiser to merely rely upon some unknown person in his office to confirm the data. | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Stategreen1 sentence1989See Drake v. State, 753 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brunsongreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guernseygreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phelpsgreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deckergreen2 sentences1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). 1981State v. Phelps, 478 S.W.2d 304, 307-08 (Mo.1972); State v. Smith, 431 S.W.2d 74, 82-83 (Mo.1968); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo. 1961); State v. King, 334 S.W.2d 34, 40 (Mo.1960); State v. Decker, 591 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Guernsey, 577 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Brunson, 559 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Hackett Ex Rel. Hackett v. Wabash Railroadgreen1 sentence1979Defendants in Hackett v. Wabash Railroad Company, 271 S.W.2d 573, 577, 579 [13] (Mo.1954), concerning plaintiff’s instruction regarding defendants’ duty “to give a timely and adequate warning of the' approach of a train,” asserted the charge gave the jury' a “roving commission” to determine the kind of warning that should have been given. | 1 | 1 |
Liebow v. Jones Store Companygreen1 sentence1966See Liebow v. Jones Store Co., Mo., 303 S.W.2d 660 [4-7]; and Dell’Aria v. Bon-fa, Mo., 307 S.W.2d 479 [2], It follows that if a defendant does give an affirma *466 tive converse instruction, he assumes the burden of persuasion as to the exculpatory facts therein hypothesized, and there must be evidence of those facts. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2018As noted in Johnson , the federal cases more frequently identify the problem as a "duplicitous indictment" which spawns trial error when the duplicity is not corrected by proper jury instructions. 405 S.W.3d at 453-54 ; see United States v. Kakos, 483 F.3d 441 , 445 (6th Cir. 2007). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ramsey
green
2 sentences2010Nonetheless, without distinguishing or overruling any of this Court’s many cases (including those noted above) stating that proportionality review requires consideration of all prior capital cases, regardless of whether a death sentence was imposed, Ramsey rejected what it called the argument that it should be “parsing through homicide cases” by examining and weighing different facts. 864 S.W.2d at 327 . 2010Nonetheless, without distinguishing or overruling any of this Court's many cases (including those noted above) stating that proportionality review requires consideration of all prior capital cases, regardless of whether a death sentence was imposed, Ramsey rejected what it called the argument that it should be "parsing through homicide cases" by examining and weighing different facts. 864 S.W.2d at 327 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Galvin v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen
green
1 sentence2008Galvin, 232 S.W. at 1060 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
North Missouri Railroad v. Lackland
neutral
1 sentence1999What is significant about the statutory charter language and the redevelopment corporation statute, section 353.130 (which grants to redevelopment corporations the eminent domain powers of chapter 523) is that these statutory provisions do not exclude the kind of claim made here by 66, Inc. Therefore, the principles expressed in Lackland, supra, and its progeny are applicable to Crest-wood Commons. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1990So long as a defendant is represented by counsel whose performance is not constitutionally ineffective under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)], we discern no inequity in requiring him to bear the risk of attorney error that results in a procedural default.... 1990So long as a defendant is represented by counsel whose performance is not constitutionally ineffective under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)], we discern no inequity in requiring him to bear the risk of attorney error that results in a procedural default.... | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Murray v. Carrier
green
2 sentences1990The fact that a meritorious objection is not made does not demonstrate incompetence. 4 There must be a showing that counsel’s overall performance fell short of established norms and that this incompetence probably affected the result. 5 Otherwise failure to object constitutes a procedural default, precluding appellate or collateral relief. 6 As Justice O’Connor said in Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 , 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2645 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986): We think, then, that the question of cause for a procedural default does not turn on whether counsel erred or on-the kind of error counsel may 1990The fact that a meritorious objection is not made does not demonstrate incompetence. 4 There must be a showing that counsel’s overall performance fell short of established norms and that this incompetence probably affected the result. 5 Otherwise failure to object constitutes a procedural default, precluding appellate or collateral relief. 6 As Justice O’Connor said in Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 , 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2645 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986): We think, then, that the question of cause for a procedural default does not turn on whether counsel erred or on-the kind of error counsel may | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Dell'Aria v. Bonfa
green
1 sentence1966See Liebow v. Jones Store Co., Mo., 303 S.W.2d 660 [4-7]; and Dell’Aria v. Bon-fa, Mo., 307 S.W.2d 479 [2], It follows that if a defendant does give an affirma *466 tive converse instruction, he assumes the burden of persuasion as to the exculpatory facts therein hypothesized, and there must be evidence of those facts. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
State v. Sarkis
green
1 sentence1961State v. Sarkis, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 723 , loc. cit. 725(2,3); 23 C.J.S. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Myers v. Buchanan
green
1 sentence1961In discussing a “mere fact” instruction similar to the first sentence of the instant instruction we recently said, “This kind of instruction has often resulted in reversals of judgments and is of a dangerous variety at -best.” Myers v. Buchanan, Mo.Sup., 333 S.W.2d 18, 23 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Fisher v. Williams
green
1 sentence1960In Fisher v. Williams, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 256 , instructions No. 3 and No. 4 there given are identical to and combined into Instruction No. 3 in the instant case. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Citizens Bank of Festus v. Missouri Natural Gas Co.
green
1 sentence1960For discussion of the reasons, see Citizens Bank of Festus v. Missouri Natural Gas Co., Mo., 314 S.W.2d 709 , and Rittershouse v. City of Springfield, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 518 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Rittershouse v. City of Springfield
green
1 sentence1960For discussion of the reasons, see Citizens Bank of Festus v. Missouri Natural Gas Co., Mo., 314 S.W.2d 709 , and Rittershouse v. City of Springfield, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 518 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Hoyberg v. Henske green | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Blodgett v. Koenig neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Buckingham v. Fitch neutral | 1 | 1919–1919 |
| Hartley v. Hartley neutral | 1 | 1903–1903 |
| Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington Railroad green | 1 | 1900–1900 |
| Howes v. Newcomb green | 1 | 1896–1896 |
| Curtis v. . Rochester and Syracuse Railroad Company green | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| Chapman v. . Rose green | 1 | 1886–1886 |
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.