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.
20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kamil, Decker & Co., P.C. v. SMC Properties, Inc.green1 sentence2018See id. | 1 | 1 |
Gerlt v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“Error is clear when the record definitely and firmly indicates that the circuit court made a mistake.” Gerlt v. State, 339 S.W.3d 578, 582 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Winfreygreen1 sentence2012The detective’s statement about the general purpose of checking identification at the door of the club was not hearsay. “ ‘A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends upon the veracity of the statement for its value.’ ” State v. Winfrey, 337 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Mo. banc 2011) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Mid-America Fittingsgreen1 sentence2010Fittings, 974 S.W.2d 586, 587 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Taylor’s claim, although procedurally defaulted, may merit habeas relief by demonstrating “cause for the failure to timely raise the claim at an earlier juncture and prejudice resulting from the error that forms the basis of the claim.” Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721, 726 (Mo. banc 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Atkins v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2004See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 . 2004See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 . | 1 | 1 |
Beaver v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Beaver v. State, 702 S.W.2d 149, 150-51 (Mo.App.1985) (during plea hearing, attorney rather than judge informed defendant of potential penalties held sufficient under Rule 24.02 because record reflected plea made voluntarily and intelligently). 1996See Beaver v. State, 702 S.W.2d 149, 150-51 (Mo.App.1985) (during plea hearing, attorney rather than judge informed defendant of potential penalties held sufficient under Rule 24.02 because record reflected plea made voluntarily and intelligently). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1981The original appeal discloses the motion was directed to a different claim, State v. Williams, 548 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Mo.App.1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2019That is the duty of the parties, not the function of an appellate court.” Id. 5 Third, Taylor’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d), which provides, in part, that a point relied on shall identify the ruling or action that the appellant challenges. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Burns v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016In Burns, this Court noted that the “something more” test encompasses “an affirmative act that creates an additional 22 danger beyond that normally faced in the job-specific work environment” but reaffirmed Taylor’s standard as “purposeful, affirmatively dangerous conduct.” 214 S.W.3d at 338 . 2016In Bums, this Court noted that the “something more” test encompasses “an affirmative act that creates an additional danger beyond that normally -faced in the job-specific work environment” but reaffirmed Taylor’s standard as “purposeful, affirmatively dangerous conduct.” 214 S.W.3d at 338 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Myles
green
1 sentence2016Id. ' Taylor’s brief on appeal is devoid of any argument about how or why Rollins’s testimony conflicted with the physical evidence collected at the scene of the shooting. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Wright
green
1 sentence2012In State v. Wright, 998 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Clark v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Norris
green
1 sentence2012Just to clarify for the jury, Detective, you had no personal knowledge if the I.D.s were compared to the person carrying the ID. and at the bar on that night; correct? [Detective Needham]: No. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Taylor’s motion for a mistrial because of the detective’s statement. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence2009The court conducted a hearing under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), about the admissibility of the phenolphthalein test results and overruled Taylor’s objection, allowing evidence of the phenolphthalein test results as a presumptive test for the presence of blood. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Barnett v. State
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cuyler v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Furman v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2000Taylor's brief addressed an eighth amendment violation in passing, noting that in Fur-man v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to sentence someone to death if the punishment is meted out arbitrarily and capriciously. 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). 2000Taylor's brief addressed an eighth amendment violation in passing, noting that in Fur-man v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to sentence someone to death if the punishment is meted out arbitrarily and capriciously. 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1997Richardson, 923 S.W.2d at 319 . 1997Richardson, 923 S.W.2d at 319 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Benson v. State
green
2 sentences1982Benson also forecloses a Taylor — Duren challenge under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel as an attorney during the time frame in question is not held to a standard of clairvoyance: “the failure of a defense attorney to file a motion to quash under the Taylor doctrine will not be deemed ineffective representation as a general rule.” Id. at 545-46 . 1982Benson also forecloses a Taylor — Duren challenge under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel as an attorney during the time frame in question is not held to a standard of clairvoyance: “the failure of a defense attorney to file a motion to quash under the Taylor doctrine will not be deemed ineffective representation as a general rule.” Id. at 545-46 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.