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.
24 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 8 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. Thomasgreen2 sentences2025Id.; State v. Thomas, 70 S.W.3d 496, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). 2023The State argues Appellant’s “mitigating” evidence focuses on the sixth factor (assessing sophistication, maturity, and living environment), but courts emphasize the first three factors and “the serious nature of the crime is the dominant criterion among the ten factors.” Interest of T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d 510 , 524 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Dec. 6, 2021), transfer denied (May 17, 2022) (quoting State v. Thomas, 70 S.W.3d 496, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002)). | 4 | 5 |
Mead v. Conngreen2 sentences2008“The first three factors are of primary importance^] and the last two are of secondary importance.” Mead v. Conn, 845 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App.1993). 2006“The first three factors are of primary importance and the last two are of secondary importance.” Mead v. Conn, 845 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App.1993). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Seidelgreen2 sentences2023Id. at 527 (citing State v. Seidel, 764 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989)). 2021Seidel, 764 S.W.2d at 519 (citing State v. Mouser, 714 S.W.2d 851, 857 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 ). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Leonard David Griffingreen2 sentences2022Our Supreme Court has also directed that "[i]t is not necessary that all of the foregoing indicia be present to find custody," and the affirmative 9 presence of one or more of the first three factors during questioning "would tend to mitigate the existence of custody at the time of questioning." Id. at 596 (quoting United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir. 1990)). 2008Id. | 1 | 2 |
Watlow Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Sam Dick Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2000Mfg., supra at 297. 1993Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Boldengreen2 sentences2022See Bolden, 558 S.W.3d at 523 (holding that the defendant’s speedy trial right was not violated after weighing the first three factors in his favor and the fourth heavily in favor of the State). 2022See Bolden, 558 S.W.3d at 523 (holding that the defendant’s speedy trial right was not violated after weighing the first three factors in his favor and the fourth heavily in favor of the State). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mousergreen1 sentence2021Seidel, 764 S.W.2d at 519 (citing State v. Mouser, 714 S.W.2d 851, 857 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 ). | 1 | 1 |
M.W. v. D.J.green1 sentence2013“Neglect is ultimately a question of an intent to forego parental duties, which includes both an obligation to provide financial support for a minor child, as well as an obligation to maintain meaningful contact with the child.” In re J.M.J., 404 S.W.3d 423, 432 (Mo.App.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co.green1 sentence2006The “minimum contacts” test “is not susceptible of mechanical application; rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite affiliating circumstances are present.” Chromalloy American Corp., 955 S.W.2d at 4 (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsongreen1 sentence2000“The first three factors are of primary importance while the last two are of secondary importance.” Id. at 534, citing Watlow Elec. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Snowgreen1 sentence1992The first three factors are derived from U.S. v. Snow, 748 F.2d 928, 930 (4th Cir.1984), wherein the court exercised its discretion to allow the habeas corpus appeal of a recaptured fugitive to proceed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Werner
green
2 sentences2022Our Supreme Court has also directed that "[i]t is not necessary that all of the foregoing indicia be present to find custody," and the affirmative 9 presence of one or more of the first three factors during questioning "would tend to mitigate the existence of custody at the time of questioning." Id. at 596 (quoting United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir. 1990)). 2021Id. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Marler v. Hiebert
green
2 sentences2000Id. 1998Id. | 2 | 1998–2000 |
cluster 1756
green
1 sentence2023Despite Appellant’s comparison, his case is remarkably different than Porter, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found a defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce mitigating evidence. 558 U.S. at 41 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Carson
green
1 sentence2021Seidel, 764 S.W.2d at 519 (citing State v. Mouser, 714 S.W.2d 851, 857 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Simpson
green
1 sentence2021Simpson, 836 S.W.2d at 82 . 2. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Doggett v. United States
green
2 sentences2010The Court readily found that the first three factors weighed against the government. 5 In analyzing Barker’s fourth factor, prejudice to the defendant, the Supreme Court stated that “affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim,” as “excessive delay presumptively eom-promises the reliability of a trial in ways that neither party can prove or, for that matter, identify.” Id. at 655 , 112 S.Ct. 2686 . 2010The Court readily found that the first three factors weighed against the government. 5 In analyzing Barker’s fourth factor, prejudice to the defendant, the Supreme Court stated that “affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim,” as “excessive delay presumptively eom-promises the reliability of a trial in ways that neither party can prove or, for that matter, identify.” Id. at 655 , 112 S.Ct. 2686 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Consolidated Electrical & Mechanicals, Inc. v. Schuerman
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Norman v. Fischer Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Dillaplain v. Lite Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Schilling v. Human Support Services
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Shaw v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2000Factor (1), “the prospective advantages of the move, including a consideration of whether or not the move will improve the general quality of life for the custodial parent and child,” Shaw, 951 S.W.2d at 748 , is pertinent to the determination of whether the proposed relocation is in-the child’s best interest, while factor (2), “the custodial parent’s motives in relocating, including a consideration of whether or not he or she is attempting to defeat or to frustrate the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights,” id., is pertinent to whether the request to relocate is made in good faith. 2000Factor (1), “the prospective advantages of the move, including a consideration of whether or not the move will improve the general quality of life for the custodial parent and child,” Shaw, 951 S.W.2d at 748 , is pertinent to the determination of whether the proposed relocation is in-the child’s best interest, while factor (2), “the custodial parent’s motives in relocating, including a consideration of whether or not he or she is attempting to defeat or to frustrate the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights,” id., is pertinent to whether the request to relocate is made in good faith. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.