course hearing (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

course hearing in Missouri

25 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2022 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.

Followed or applied (18)

CaseFollowedCited
Doe v. Yale Universitygreen
conn · 2000 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2008–2015
2 sentences

2015Dallas Airmotive, Inc., 277 S.W.3d at 700 -701 (citing Doe v. Yale Univ., 252 Conn. 641 , 748 A.2d 834, 846-50 (2000)), 9 .

2015Dallas Airmotive, Inc., 277 S.W.3d at 700 -701 (citing Doe v. Yale Univ., 252 Conn. 641 , 748 A.2d 834, 846-50 (2000)), 9 .

22
State v. Brinkleygreen
· 1945 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009Thereafter, Judge Henry recused himself from the matter followed by the recusal of other assigned judges such that Judge Gary Witt ultimately became the trial judge in this matter. 3 . "[T]he law is settled that where there are several assignments of perjury in an information, substantial proof of any one of them will support a conviction.” State v. Brinkley, 354 Mo. 337 , 189 S.W.2d 314, 325 (1945). 4 .

2009Thereafter, Judge Henry recused himself from the matter followed by the recusal of other assigned judges such that Judge Gary Witt ultimately became the trial judge in this matter. 3 . "[T]he law is settled that where there are several assignments of perjury in an information, substantial proof of any one of them will support a conviction.” State v. Brinkley, 354 Mo. 337 , 189 S.W.2d 314, 325 (1945). 4 .

11
Williams v. Stategreen
moctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Williams v. State, 740 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo.App.1987).

11
Casey v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Artsgreen
moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Casey v. State Bd. of Registration of Healing Arts, 830 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Mo.App.1992).

11
Burwick v. Woodgreen
moctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Burwick, 959 S.W.2d at 952 .

11
State v. Kindergreen
mo · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997See id. at 322 .

11
Moore v. Stampsgreen
moctapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992See Moore v. Stamps, supra. An additional factor to be considered in the balancing process is whether the parolee challenges the accuracy of the hearsay evidence during the course of the hearing.

11
Koenig v. Babkagreen
moctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987Through counsel, Roeder objected, stating that under Koenig v. Babka, 682 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Mo.App.1984), medical records are to be accorded the dignity equal to a similar opinion offered by a witness at trial.

11
State v. Carrollgreen
moctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
1 sentence

1986See also State v. Carroll, 543 S.W.2d 48, 51 (Mo.App.1976).

11
United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinezgreen
ca3 · 1975 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982United States v. Alvarez, supra, 519 F.2d at 1046-47 (3d Cir.1975) (emphasis added).

1982United States v. Alvarez, supra, 519 F.2d at 1046-47 (3d Cir.1975) (emphasis added).

11
Simms v. Ford Motor Credit Co.green
moctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Simms v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 605 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.1980) and Bayer v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.App.1966) (error for trial court to dismiss petition for injunction at show cause hearing for temporary injunction); Acha v. Beame, 531 F.2d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 1976); Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 926, 935-936 (10th Cir. 1975); But see present Rule 92.02(a)(2); and see e.g., Atlantic Richfield Co. v. F.T.C., 546 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir. 1977). 5 However, assuming, without deciding, the court had this authority, the court still was obliged to i

11
Bayer v. Associated Underwriters, Inc.green
moctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Simms v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 605 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.1980) and Bayer v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.App.1966) (error for trial court to dismiss petition for injunction at show cause hearing for temporary injunction); Acha v. Beame, 531 F.2d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 1976); Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 926, 935-936 (10th Cir. 1975); But see present Rule 92.02(a)(2); and see e.g., Atlantic Richfield Co. v. F.T.C., 546 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir. 1977). 5 However, assuming, without deciding, the court had this authority, the court still was obliged to i

11
Puerto Rican Farm Workers Ex Rel. Felipe Pagan Vidal v. K. D. Eatmongreen
ca5 · 1970 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See, e.g., Puerto Rican Farm Workers v. Eatmon, 427 F.2d 210, 211 (5th Cir. 1970).

11
Dry Creek Lodge, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation v. The United States of Americagreen
ca10 · 1975 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Simms v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 605 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.1980) and Bayer v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.App.1966) (error for trial court to dismiss petition for injunction at show cause hearing for temporary injunction); Acha v. Beame, 531 F.2d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 1976); Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 926, 935-936 (10th Cir. 1975); But see present Rule 92.02(a)(2); and see e.g., Atlantic Richfield Co. v. F.T.C., 546 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir. 1977). 5 However, assuming, without deciding, the court had this authority, the court still was obliged to i

11
cluster 333889green
ca2 · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Simms v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 605 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.1980) and Bayer v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.App.1966) (error for trial court to dismiss petition for injunction at show cause hearing for temporary injunction); Acha v. Beame, 531 F.2d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 1976); Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 926, 935-936 (10th Cir. 1975); But see present Rule 92.02(a)(2); and see e.g., Atlantic Richfield Co. v. F.T.C., 546 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir. 1977). 5 However, assuming, without deciding, the court had this authority, the court still was obliged to i

11
Atlantic Richfield Company v. Federal Trade Commissiongreen
ca5 · 1977 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Simms v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 605 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.1980) and Bayer v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.App.1966) (error for trial court to dismiss petition for injunction at show cause hearing for temporary injunction); Acha v. Beame, 531 F.2d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 1976); Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 926, 935-936 (10th Cir. 1975); But see present Rule 92.02(a)(2); and see e.g., Atlantic Richfield Co. v. F.T.C., 546 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir. 1977). 5 However, assuming, without deciding, the court had this authority, the court still was obliged to i

11
State v. Timmonsgreen
moctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11
State v. Younggreen
moctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (28)

CaseCitedYears
RJJ by Johnson v. Shineman green
moctapp · 1983
1 sentence

2022Id. at 911- 8 12.

12022–2022
United States v. Bagley green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2015Importantly, this Court must analyze “the possibility that such effect might have occurred ⅛ light of the totality of the circumstances and with an awareness of the difficulty of reconstructing in a posttrial proceeding the course that the defense and the trial would have taken had the defense not been misled by the prosecutor’s incomplete response.” Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683 ; 105 S.Ct. 3375 .

2015Importantly, this Court must analyze “the possibility that such effect might have occurred ⅛ light of the totality of the circumstances and with an awareness of the difficulty of reconstructing in a posttrial proceeding the course that the defense and the trial would have taken had the defense not been misled by the prosecutor’s incomplete response.” Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683 ; 105 S.Ct. 3375 .

12015–2015
Dallas Airmotive, Inc. v. FlightSafety International, Inc. green
moctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2015Dallas Airmotive, Inc., 277 S.W.3d at 700 -701 (citing Doe v. Yale Univ., 252 Conn. 641 , 748 A.2d 834, 846-50 (2000)), 9 .

12015–2015
Vogel v. Maimonides Academy of Western Connecticut, Inc. green
connappct · 2000
1 sentence

2008Id.

12008–2008
André v. Pace University green
nyappterm · 1996
1 sentence

2008Andre v. Pace Univ, 170 Misc.2d 893 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 777 , 779 (N.Y.App.Div.1996).

12008–2008
Kirchner v. Yale University green
conn · 1963
1 sentence

2008Id.

12008–2008
State ex rel. Plaster v. Pinnell green
moctapp · 1992
2 sentences

1995In the course of its analysis, the court further observed that assuming, without deciding, that then Rule 54.20(f) could be applied to service by mail, and further assuming that a postman could be considered a “server” as used in that rule, the “return” would have to satisfy Rule 54.20(a)(2) [for service within the state], which would in turn require an affidavit of the server “as to the time, place and manner of service thereof.” Id. 831 S.W.2d at 952 .

1995In the course of its analysis, the court further observed that assuming, without deciding, that then Rule 54.20(f) could be applied to service by mail, and further assuming that a postman could be considered a “server” as used in that rule, the “return” would have to satisfy Rule 54.20(a)(2) [for service within the state], which would in turn require an affidavit of the server “as to the time, place and manner of service thereof.” Id. 831 S.W.2d at 952 .

11995–1995
Beard v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. green
mo · 1959
1 sentence

1993The court disposed of the defense counsel’s argument that the responses to his question indicated a disqualifying prejudice or bias, stating: “Any supposed implication that any venireman was of a ‘deep-seated conscientious’ belief that in all circumstances the employer should pay and regardless of any question of the employer’s fault was self-drawn and injected by defendants’ counsel in the course of his inquiry.” Id.

11993–1993
United States v. Bruce Bell green
ca8 · 1986
1 sentence

1992United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d at 564 ; United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d at 643 .

11992–1992
United States v. Rickey Dean Simmons green
ca9 · 1987
1 sentence

1992United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d at 564 ; United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d at 643 .

11992–1992
State v. Pratt green
md · 1979
2 sentences

1982The attorney must be free to make an informed judgment with respect to the best course of the defense without the inhibition of creating a potential government witness." The same situation was presented in State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516 , 398 A.2d 421 (1979), with an identical holding.

1982The attorney must be free to make an informed judgment with respect to the best course of the defense without the inhibition of creating a potential government witness." The same situation was presented in State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516 , 398 A.2d 421 (1979), with an identical holding.

11982–1982
Aufrichtig v. Columbia National Life Insurance green
· 1923
2 sentences

1981In the course of their analysis, the court examined the instruction in Aufrichtig v. Columbia National Life Insurance Co., 298 Mo. 1 , 249 S.W. 912 (1923), wherein the following instruction defining insanity was upheld: [Insanity] ... mean[s] ... a deranged condition of the mind [such] as to render a person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or unconscious at the time of the nature of the act he is committing .. . and though able to distinguish between right and wrong, yet his will, that is, the governing power of his mind, is so far destroyed or impaired that he cannot contro

1981In the course of their analysis, the court examined the instruction in Aufrichtig v. Columbia National Life Insurance Co., 298 Mo. 1 , 249 S.W. 912 (1923), wherein the following instruction defining insanity was upheld: [Insanity] ... mean[s] ... a deranged condition of the mind [such] as to render a person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or unconscious at the time of the nature of the act he is committing .. . and though able to distinguish between right and wrong, yet his will, that is, the governing power of his mind, is so far destroyed or impaired that he cannot contro

11981–1981
Application of Maples green
mo · 1978
1 sentence

1981In his brief, the applicant posits error on the part of the trial court for failing to follow the mandate of Maples, supra, and contact the natural father of the applicant.

11981–1981
Kerr v. State green
moctapp · 1979
1 sentence

1980Rule 27.26(j); Kerr v. State, 584 S.W.2d 626 (Mo.App.1979).

11980–1980
McQueen v. Chouteau's Heirs green
mo · 1855
11952–1952
Gupton v. Gupton green
· 1870
11952–1952
Hamilton v. Hamilton green
mo · 1875
11952–1952
Robinson v. Smith neutral
mo · 1892
11952–1952
Ryan v. Dunlap neutral
mo · 1892
11952–1952
Hagan v. Continental National Bank neutral
· 1904
11952–1952
Standard Scale & Foundry Co. v. Kansas City Furnace Co. neutral
moctapp · 1905
11913–1913
Jackson v. Hardin green
mo · 1884
11908–1908
State v. Partlow green
· 1886
11908–1908
State v. Hopper neutral
mo · 1898
11908–1908
State v. Goddard green
· 1898
11908–1908
State v. Murray green
· 1886
11901–1901
Casey v. State neutral
neb · 1886
11901–1901
Keenan v. People neutral
ill · 1882
11901–1901

Where else courts name it

CA 150 (1902–2025) NY 128 (1863–2025) IL 92 (1891–2026) PA 69 (1906–2026) TX 66 (1922–2023) OR 52 (1970–2025) MD 47 (1940–2025) WA 46 (1980–2026) CT 42 (1942–2024) FL 36 (1941–2025) NJ 36 (1938–2026) OH 35 (1985–2023) MI 33 (1921–2025) TN 25 (1977–2025) MO 25 (1901–2022) MA 22 (1876–2024) VA 20 (1887–2021) LA 20 (1963–2018) WI 19 (1946–2026) GA 19 (1979–2019) NC 19 (1950–2021) CO 16 (1963–2021) MN 14 (1922–2024) IN 14 (1891–2013) NE 13 (1910–2022) AZ 11 (1971–2024) AL 11 (1937–2004) UT 10 (1951–2026) IA 10 (1862–2023) HI 9 (1979–2022) DC 9 (1959–2011) RI 9 (1928–2018) AK 8 (1975–2023) OK 8 (1896–2006) DE 7 (1954–2020) MT 7 (1976–2021) WV 7 (1949–2019) WY 6 (1987–2017) MS 6 (1956–2024) SD 6 (1910–2019) AR 5 (1928–2001) ME 5 (1989–2017) KY 4 (2002–2026) KS 4 (1915–2021) VT 3 (1969–2016) NM 3 (1999–2025) NH 3 (1982–1995) ND 3 (1985–1998) SC 3 (1964–1992) NV 2 (1994–2020) ID 2 (1986–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check