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.
22 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1900–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harringtongreen1 sentence2013“Simple justice requires that a defen dant be permitted to prepare to meet what thus looms as the critical element of the case against him.” State v. Harrington, 534 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Mo. banc 1976) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State of Washington Ex Rel. Lewis v. Collisgreen1 sentence2011In our review of Point I, we note with regard to prisoner access to the courts, that the Supreme Court of Missouri in Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840, 846 (Mo. banc 1996), observed that there is “a constitutional right of access to the courts.” “However, this right of access is not a right to perfect access; constitutionally sufficient access can be afforded by *802 means other than personal appearance.” State of Washington ex rel Lewis v. Collis, 963 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Call v. Heardgreen1 sentence2011In our review of Point I, we note with regard to prisoner access to the courts, that the Supreme Court of Missouri in Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840, 846 (Mo. banc 1996), observed that there is “a constitutional right of access to the courts.” “However, this right of access is not a right to perfect access; constitutionally sufficient access can be afforded by *802 means other than personal appearance.” State of Washington ex rel Lewis v. Collis, 963 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Vangunda v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Vangunda, 922 S.W.2d at 858 . | 1 | 1 |
Goodwin v. Farmers Elevator & Exchangegreen1 sentence2001Goodwin v. Farmers Elevator and Exchange, 933 S.W.2d 926, 928-929 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wesselgreen1 sentence1998State v. Wessel, 950 S.W.2d 14 n. 2 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Marc's Restaurant, Inc. v. CBS, INC.green1 sentence1996Because the documents were not considered by the trial court and were not made part of the record, they likewise cannot be introduced into the record on appeal. 8 Marc’s Restaurant, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 730 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Heidtgreen1 sentence1991Rule 74.04(c) provides that opposing affidavits may be served “prior to the day of hearing.” See Estate of Heidt, 785 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Frankelgreen1 sentence1985See also, In re Marriage of Frankel, 550 S.W.2d 896 (Mo.App.1977), holding that an application for change of judge filed on the day of hearing was not timely under Rule 51.05, “strict compliance with the provisions of the rule is essential.” In this case, at least 30 days before the trial date would have required the motion to have been filed before June 10, 1983 as the later date; or within five days after the trial date was fixed, would have been about May 9, 1983. | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Stategreen1 sentence1982Griffith v. State, 504 S.W.2d 324, 330 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
McCulley v. Stategreen1 sentence1974What has been said disposes of all the “points” raised in the pro se brief and all of the points stated in brief of counsel save that “The sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of this court and to authorize this court to set aside the sentence.” To this we repeat that fixing the limits of punishment is a legislative function [McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419, 423 [5] (Mo.1972)], and as movant did not receive a sentence greater than the highest limit declared by law, it cannot be held to be excessive [State v. Smith, 445 S.W.2d 326, 332 [6] (Mo.1969)] or cruel or unusual [State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heinrichgreen1 sentence1974What has been said disposes of all the “points” raised in the pro se brief and all of the points stated in brief of counsel save that “The sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of this court and to authorize this court to set aside the sentence.” To this we repeat that fixing the limits of punishment is a legislative function [McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419, 423 [5] (Mo.1972)], and as movant did not receive a sentence greater than the highest limit declared by law, it cannot be held to be excessive [State v. Smith, 445 S.W.2d 326, 332 [6] (Mo.1969)] or cruel or unusual [State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1974What has been said disposes of all the “points” raised in the pro se brief and all of the points stated in brief of counsel save that “The sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of this court and to authorize this court to set aside the sentence.” To this we repeat that fixing the limits of punishment is a legislative function [McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419, 423 [5] (Mo.1972)], and as movant did not receive a sentence greater than the highest limit declared by law, it cannot be held to be excessive [State v. Smith, 445 S.W.2d 326, 332 [6] (Mo.1969)] or cruel or unusual [State | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doody v. State, Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Green
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 327 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State Ex Rel. Stoffer v. Moore
green
1 sentence1999Stoffer v. Moore, 628 S.W.2d 637 (Mo. banc 1982)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Obermann v. Obermann
green
1 sentence1999The court suggested "...the [trial] court ruled so on the day of the hearing because the [plaintiff] was entitled to a hearing and the trial judge wanted to delay his final ruling until the hearing was concluded.” Id. at 163 (citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hightower v. Edwards
green
1 sentence1997The parties agreed that “All motions for summary judgment are taken as directed to the first amended petition.” The duty of an employer to his employee is set out in considerable depth in Hightower v. Edwards, 445 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. banc 1969). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Wilkins v. State
green
1 sentence1992The test for determining if the waiver is made intelligently and knowingly depends on the “particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Wilkins v. State, 802 S.W.2d at 501 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dameron v. Board of Education of the Lebanon School District R-3
green
2 sentences1992Dameron, 549 S.W.2d at 674 . 1992Dameron, 549 S.W.2d at 674 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State ex rel. Hicklin ex rel. McDaniel v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
neutral
1 sentence1957In State ex rel. and to Use of Hicklin v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y., Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 596 , a similar contention was made with respect to a motion for new trial. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
In Re Irvine's Estate
green
2 sentences1950In re Irvine's Estate, 114 Mont. 577, 585 , 139 P.2d 489, 492 , 147 A.L. 1950In re Irvine's Estate, 114 Mont. 577, 585 , 139 P.2d 489, 492 , 147 A.L. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
State v. McBrien
neutral
2 sentences1936In State v. Barker, 294 Mo. 303, 315 , 242 S. W. 405, 409 , the rule was quoted and the case holds that because of the violation thereof we could “refuse to consider any of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief.’’ On the other hand, in State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 594, 603 , 178 S. W. 489, 491 , the opinion treated Rule 15 (which makes certain requirements relative to the contents and arrangement of briefs) as applying to criminal cases; but held that notwithstanding appellant’s violation of the rule he was in no worse shape than if he had filed no brief at all; and that in obedience to th 1936In State v. Barker, 294 Mo. 303, 315 , 242 S. W. 405, 409 , the rule was quoted and the case holds that because of the violation thereof we could “refuse to consider any of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief.’’ On the other hand, in State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 594, 603 , 178 S. W. 489, 491 , the opinion treated Rule 15 (which makes certain requirements relative to the contents and arrangement of briefs) as applying to criminal cases; but held that notwithstanding appellant’s violation of the rule he was in no worse shape than if he had filed no brief at all; and that in obedience to th | 1 | 1936–1936 |
State v. Barker
neutral
2 sentences1936In State v. Barker, 294 Mo. 303, 315 , 242 S. W. 405, 409 , the rule was quoted and the case holds that because of the violation thereof we could “refuse to consider any of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief.’’ On the other hand, in State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 594, 603 , 178 S. W. 489, 491 , the opinion treated Rule 15 (which makes certain requirements relative to the contents and arrangement of briefs) as applying to criminal cases; but held that notwithstanding appellant’s violation of the rule he was in no worse shape than if he had filed no brief at all; and that in obedience to th 1936In State v. Barker, 294 Mo. 303, 315 , 242 S. W. 405, 409 , the rule was quoted and the case holds that because of the violation thereof we could “refuse to consider any of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief.’’ On the other hand, in State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 594, 603 , 178 S. W. 489, 491 , the opinion treated Rule 15 (which makes certain requirements relative to the contents and arrangement of briefs) as applying to criminal cases; but held that notwithstanding appellant’s violation of the rule he was in no worse shape than if he had filed no brief at all; and that in obedience to th | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Harding v. Bedoll
neutral
1 sentence1909We had occasion to review the authorities in this State upon this question in the recent case of Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625 . | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Feurt v. Caster
green
1 sentence1907In Little Rock Trust Co. v. Railroad, 195 Mo. l. c. 689, 93 S. W. 944 , the court said: “The right to amend a return rests in the sound discretion of the court, and the party to be affected by the amendment has a right to a day in court before the court has a right to permit the amendment.” [See also Feurt v. Caster, 174 Mo. 289 .] Leave to amend the return should have been applied for before the case Avas submitted, and notice serAred on the opposite party, so that the court might have fixed a day for hearing the application, and granted or refused the offer to amend before the case was submi | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Little Rock Trust Co. v. Southern Missouri & Arkansas Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1907In Little Rock Trust Co. v. Railroad, 195 Mo. l. c. 689, 93 S. W. 944 , the court said: “The right to amend a return rests in the sound discretion of the court, and the party to be affected by the amendment has a right to a day in court before the court has a right to permit the amendment.” [See also Feurt v. Caster, 174 Mo. 289 .] Leave to amend the return should have been applied for before the case Avas submitted, and notice serAred on the opposite party, so that the court might have fixed a day for hearing the application, and granted or refused the offer to amend before the case was submi | 1 | 1907–1907 |
State ex rel. Webster v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1900This application coming on to be heard in due course, the writ was refused, by a decision rendered on the 21st of January, 1896. [State ex rel. v. Johnson, 132 Mo. 105 .] Pending this proceeding, the referee, after setting a day for the hearing, adjourned • the same from time to time without taking further action until the twenty-seventh of January, 1896, when he tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the circuit court by the following order entered on the thirty-first of January, 1896: “It is ordered by the court that the resignation of Edward P. Johnson, Esq., heretofore appointed r | 1 | 1900–1900 |
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.