commits reversible error in Missouri

24 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2019 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.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Younggreen mo · 1963 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2019 2 sentences 2019State v. Dismang, 151 S.W.3d 155, 161 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). 11 despite timely objection, it admits documentary evidence of the accused’s convictions that does not meet the minimum requirements of section 490.130.” (citing State v. Young, 366 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Mo. 1963))). 2013State v. Young, 366 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Mo.1963).	2	3
Moe v. Blue Springs Truck Lines, Inc.green mo · 1968 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Moe v. Blue Springs Truck Lines, Inc., 426 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.1968). 2015Moe v. Blue Springs Truck Lines, Inc., 426 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. 1968).	2	2
Juvenile Officer v. J.S.J.green moctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Similarly, at the TPR hearing, the trial court refused to dismiss the TPR petition because, in the earlier proceedings, Father was "allowed to participate" and "allowed to ask questions." However, a trial court commits reversible error when it fails to comply with the requirements of Section 211.211.4, even where a parent "was given an opportunity to cross-examine and otherwise participate in the hearing[s]...." In re M.A.J., 998 S.W.2d 177, 182 (Mo.App. 2011Similarly, at the TPR hearing, the trial court refused to dismiss the TPR petition because, in the earlier proceedings, Father was “allowed to participate” and “allowed to ask questions.” However, a trial court commits reversible error when it fails to comply with the requirements of Section 211.211.4, even where a parent “was given an opportunity to cross-examine and otherwise participate in the hearing[s].... ” In re M.A.J., 998 S.W.2d 177, 182 (Mo.App.	2	2
Juvenile Office v. Schmidtgreen moctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011W.D.1999) (reversing In re L.A.P., 640 S.W.2d 511 (Mo.App.1982)); see also In re N.S., 77 S.W.3d at 656 . 2011W.D.1999) (reversing In re L.A.P., 640 S.W.2d 511 (Mo.App.1982)); see also In re N.S., 77 S.W.3d at 656 .	2	2
State v. McElroygreen moctapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–2001 2 sentences 2001State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494 , 512 n. 9 (Mo.banc 1994); State v. McElroy, 894 S.W.2d 180, 184 [2] (Mo.App.1995). 1997Wise, 879 S.W.2d at 512 n. 9; McElroy, 894 S.W.2d at 184 [2], “The critical question in a bias challenge is whether the venireperson unequivocally indicated an ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially.” State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 894 (Mo.banc 1995).	2	2
State v. Martinezgreen moctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See State v. Martinez, 407 S.W.3d 669, 673 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (“A court commits reversible error if, 5 However, the court held that this error was not prejudicial because another exhibit setting forth defendant’s prior criminal history of five felony convictions was properly certified in accordance with section 490.220.	1	1
State v. Dismanggreen moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019State v. Dismang, 151 S.W.3d 155, 161 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). 11 despite timely objection, it admits documentary evidence of the accused’s convictions that does not meet the minimum requirements of section 490.130.” (citing State v. Young, 366 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Mo. 1963))).	1	1
In Re CFgreen moctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016In re C.F., 340 S.W.3d 296, 301 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (finding that the trial court commits reversible error when it fails to comply with section 211.211 even where a parent is given an opportunity to cross-examine and otherwise participate in the hearings).	1	1
Brown v. Yettawgreen moctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Brown v. Yettaw, 116 S.W.3d 733, 735 (Mo.App.	1	1
Dickerson v. Dickersongreen moctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004A trial court commits reversible error by failing to make those mandatory findings. 7 *476 See Dickerson v. Dickerson, 55 S.W.3d 867, 874 (Mo.App.2001).	1	1
State v. Storeygreen mo · 1995 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Wise, 879 S.W.2d at 512 n. 9; McElroy, 894 S.W.2d at 184 [2], “The critical question in a bias challenge is whether the venireperson unequivocally indicated an ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially.” State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 894 (Mo.banc 1995).	1	1
S.J v. Ex Rel. Blank v. Voshagegreen moctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995S.J.V. by Blank v. Voshage, 860 S.W.2d 802, 803 (Mo.App.1993).	1	1
Harris v. Washingtongreen moctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990Harris v. Washington, 654 S.W.2d 303, 307 (Mo.App.1983).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Schubert v. Schubert green moctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2017Schubert, 366 S.W.3d at 65 ; Woodard, 201 S.W.3d at 563 . 2017Schubert, 366 S.W.3d at 65 ; Woodard, 201 S.W.3d at 563 .	2	2017–2017
Woodard v. Woodard green moctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2017Schubert, 366 S.W.3d at 65 ; Woodard, 201 S.W.3d at 563 . 2017Schubert, 366 S.W.3d at 65 ; Woodard, 201 S.W.3d at 563 .	2	2017–2017
Midland Property Partners, LLC v. Watkins green moctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2014“Thus, a trial court commits reversible error if it denies a party its right to a jury trial in a civil case that is otherwise triable by jury.” Id. 2014“Thus, a trial court commits reversible error if it denies a party its right to a jury trial in a civil case that is otherwise triable by jury.” Id.	2	2014–2014
In the Interest of L_ A_ P neutral moctapp · 1982 2 sentences 2011W.D.1999) (reversing In re L.A.P., 640 S.W.2d 511 (Mo.App.1982)); see also In re N.S., 77 S.W.3d at 656 . 2011W.D.1999) (reversing In re L.A.P., 640 S.W.2d 511 (Mo.App.1982)); see also In re N.S., 77 S.W.3d at 656 .	2	2011–2011
State v. Wise green mo · 1994 2 sentences 2001State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494 , 512 n. 9 (Mo.banc 1994); State v. McElroy, 894 S.W.2d 180, 184 [2] (Mo.App.1995). 1997Wise, 879 S.W.2d at 512 n. 9; McElroy, 894 S.W.2d at 184 [2], “The critical question in a bias challenge is whether the venireperson unequivocally indicated an ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially.” State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 894 (Mo.banc 1995).	2	1997–2001
State of Missouri v. Denford Jackson green mo · 2014 2 sentences 2016This occurs because if the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of the greater charged offense, there is always sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the lesser-included offense in that the jury may “disbelieve all or any part of the evidence concerning that differential element.” Pierce, 433 S.W.3d at 430 (citing Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 404-06 ). 2016This occurs because if the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of the greater charged offense, there is always sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the lesser-included offense in that the jury may “disbelieve all or any part of the evidence concerning that differential element.” Pierce, 433 S.W.3d at 430 (citing Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 404-06 ).	1	2016–2016
State of Missouri v. Bruce Pierce green mo · 2014 2 sentences 2016This occurs because if the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of the greater charged offense, there is always sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the lesser-included offense in that the jury may “disbelieve all or any part of the evidence concerning that differential element.” Pierce, 433 S.W.3d at 430 (citing Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 404-06 ). 2016This occurs because if the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant of the greater charged offense, there is always sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the lesser-included offense in that the jury may “disbelieve all or any part of the evidence concerning that differential element.” Pierce, 433 S.W.3d at 430 (citing Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 404-06 ).	1	2016–2016
Bydalek v. Brines green moctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2013Id.	1	2013–2013
In Re JSW green moctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2011Id.	1	2011–2011
Doza v. Kitcher green moctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2003“A trial court commits reversible error if it fails to hold an evidentiary hearing under such circumstances.” Doza, 987 S.W.2d at 827 .	1	2003–2003
Grimes v. Bagwell green moctapp · 1991 1 sentence 2000Id. at 444 .	1	2000–2000
Ehrhart v. Ehrhart green moctapp · 1989 1 sentence 1999Grist, 946 S.W.2d at 782 ; Ehrhart, 776 S.W.2d at 451 .	1	1999–1999
Grist v. Grist green moctapp · 1997 1 sentence 1999Grist, 946 S.W.2d at 782 ; Ehrhart, 776 S.W.2d at 451 .	1	1999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.211 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.130 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 75 (1921–2026) OH 71 (1985–2026) OR 49 (2014–2026) FL 43 (1977–2026) IL 31 (1979–2025) SC 26 (1989–2014) MO 24 (1990–2019) IN 24 (1979–2020) WA 23 (1989–2025) AR 13 (1966–2025) PA 12 (1973–2026) AL 11 (1979–2016) CA 9 (1982–2022) GA 8 (1997–2026) NC 8 (1988–2005) WY 7 (1988–2012) KS 7 (1980–2022) AZ 6 (1981–2024) MS 6 (1996–2025) TN 5 (1995–2013) CO 5 (1992–2024) DC 5 (1983–2004) NY 4 (2014–2026) ND 4 (1999–2026) CT 3 (1994–2016) MI 3 (1971–1979) OK 3 (1979–2001) WV 3 (2000–2014) UT 2 (1993–2005) MT 2 (1925–1994)

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