23 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
MacLin v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Rule 29.15(i); Maclin v. State, 184 S.W.3d 103, 107 (Mo.App. 2007Rule 29.16(i); Maclin , 184 S.W.3d. at 107. | 3 | 3 |
Miller v. Kansas City Station Corp.green2 sentences2006Miller v. Kansas City Station Corp., 996 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Mo.App.1999). 2004Miller v. Kansas City Station Corp., 996 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Cornell v. Texaco, Inc.green2 sentences1993In fact, to reverse a jury verdict on the grounds of instructional error regarding a not-in-MAI instruction, “it must appear that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury; the burden to prove the error rests with the party challenging the instruction.” MFA, 817 S.W.2d at 663 (citing Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 ). 1993Cornell v. Texaco, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Mo. banc 1986). | 1 | 3 |
Gittemeier v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“Allegations in a postconviction motion are not self-proving; rather, a movant bears the burden to prove his claim of ineffective assistance by a preponderance of the evidence.” Gittemeier v. State, 527 S.W.3d 64, 71 (Mo. 2017). 2019"Allegations in a postconviction motion are not self-proving; rather, a movant bears the burden to prove his claim of ineffective assistance by a preponderance of the evidence." Gittemeier v. State , 527 S.W.3d 64 , 71 (Mo. banc 2017). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Shafergreen1 sentence2024"Once the state puts forth prima facie evidence of a constitutional waiver . . . the burden shifts to the [defendant] to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the [defendant's] waiver was involuntary, unintelligent, or unknowing." Teter, 665 S.W.3d at 316 (quoting State v. Shafer, 969 S.W.2d 719, 727-28 (Mo. banc 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Foreclosures of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes Ex Rel. Collector of Revenue v. Bhattigreen2 sentences2023“With hundreds of properties subject to tax lien foreclosure ... notions of due process and statutory law do not require the sheriff [or other government actor] to take any further steps to find property owners absent knowledge that notice was not received.” Bhatti, 334 S.W.3d at 451 (finding no due process violation occurred in a City of St. 2023In re Foreclosures of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes by Action in rem Collector of Revenue v. Bhatti, 334 S.W.3d 444, 448-49 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing Jones v. Flowers, 547 USS. 220, 226 (2006)); see also Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 US. 1, 15 (1976) (noting the party raising a challenge on due-process grounds bears the burden to prove a violation occurred). | 1 | 1 |
Strobl v. Lanegreen1 sentence2022Strobl v. Lane, 250 S.W.3d 843, 844 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008). “[W]e view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Ortmann v. Dace Homes, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Ortmann v. Dace Homes, Inc.green1 sentence2022Strobl v. Lane, 250 S.W.3d 843, 844 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008). “[W]e view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Ortmann v. Dace Homes, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Silveygreen1 sentence2017State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 671 (Mo. banc 1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. banc 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Holman v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Rule 29.15(i); Holman v. State, 88 S.W.3d 105, 109 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Craig v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1991Craig v. Thompson, 244 S.W.2d 37, 42 (Mo. banc 1951). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. School District of Springfield R-12green1 sentence1987Williams v. School District of Springfield R-12, 447 S.W.2d at 265 [7, 8]. | 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. Schnelle
green
2 sentences1999Id. 1999Id. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Nunley
green
1 sentence2019"Failure to present evidence at a hearing in support of factual claims in a post-conviction motion constitutes abandonment of that claim." Id. (quoting State v. Nunley , 980 S.W.2d 290 , 293 (Mo. banc 1998) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
White v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2019White, 321 S.W.3d at 305 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State of Missouri v. Sylvester Porter
green
1 sentence2017State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 671 (Mo. banc 1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. banc 2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Simpkins v. Ryder Freight System, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 421 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Woodall v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence1993Snelson also claims that “[t]he Department of Police has the burden to prove the test results are reliable by proof that published rules of procedure were followed.” 6 He partially bases his argument on our recent case of Woodall v. Director of Revenue, 795 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.App.1990), where we held that an administrative rule promulgated by the Division of Health requiring that a breath analyzer be subjected to maintenance checks at regular intervals was mandatory, and that the failure of a tester to conduct such checks rendered test results inadmissible. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
MFA INC. v. Dettler
green
1 sentence1993In fact, to reverse a jury verdict on the grounds of instructional error regarding a not-in-MAI instruction, “it must appear that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury; the burden to prove the error rests with the party challenging the instruction.” MFA, 817 S.W.2d at 663 (citing Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Hubble
green
1 sentence1979State v. Zimpher, 552 S.W.2d 345 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Hubble, 494 S.W.2d 358 (Mo.App.1973). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Zimpher
green
1 sentence1979State v. Zimpher, 552 S.W.2d 345 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Hubble, 494 S.W.2d 358 (Mo.App.1973). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.