19 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2024 1 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. Claygreen2 sentences2024Accordingly, this Court “will not charge the trial court with plain error for a defendant’s self-invited errors.” Id. 2024Thus, Caves waived plain error review. 3 “The concept of waiver in a criminal case is generally limited to self-invited errors.” State v. Nickels, 598 S.W.3d 626 , 634 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). “[U]nder the doctrine of self-invited error, [a] party cannot complain on appeal about an alleged error in which that party joined or acquiesced….” State v. Gee, 684 S.W.3d 363 , 372 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (citation omitted). “[T]his Court will not use plain error to impose a sua sponte duty on the trial court to correct [a] [d]efendant’s invited errors.” Nickels, 598 S.W.3d at 634 (quoting State v. Clay, 533 | 2 | 2 |
King v. Guygreen2 sentences1991We reverse and remand. “ ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.’ ” King v. Guy, 297 S.W.2d 617, 622 (Mo.App.1956) (quoting Davis v. Hauschild, 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 (Mo.1951)). 1971Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 926 , cited and relied upon by appellants, the court stated ( 448 S.W.2d 931 [4]) : “Our courts have said that, ‘ * * * “The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.” * * ’ Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular | 1 | 5 |
Davis v. Hauschildgreen2 sentences1991We reverse and remand. “ ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.’ ” King v. Guy, 297 S.W.2d 617, 622 (Mo.App.1956) (quoting Davis v. Hauschild, 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 (Mo.1951)). 1971Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 926 , cited and relied upon by appellants, the court stated ( 448 S.W.2d 931 [4]) : “Our courts have said that, ‘ * * * “The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.” * * ’ Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular | 1 | 5 |
State v. Boldengreen1 sentence2020State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) (citing State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805-06 (Mo. bane 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte McClellandgreen1 sentence1998“The concept of privilege is an exception to the usual rule of courts that all evidence material, relevant and competent to a judicial proceeding shall be revealed if called for.” Ex parte McClelland, 521 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Yagovane v. Stategreen1 sentence1998In Yagovane v. State, 923 S.W.2d 522, 523-24 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Grommet v. Grommetgreen1 sentence1995Id. at 751 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Castle v. Tracygreen1 sentence1991“Based on that doctrine the general rule as stated in a number of cases is that, ‘It is well settled law where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, and he makes his election, and institutes his suit, that in case the action thus begun is prosecuted to final judgment, or the plaintiff has received anything of value under a claim thus asserted, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.’ ” Castle v. Tracy, 463 S.W.2d 777, 781 (Mo.1971) (quoting Johnson-Brinkman Comm’n Co. v. Missouri Pac. | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Carrgreen1 sentence1991Furthermore, the concept of waiver of instructional error by failing to object at trial, as discussed in such cases as Fowler v. Park Corp., 673 S.W.2d 749, 755-757 (Mo. banc 1984) and Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68, 70-72 (Mo. banc 1984), applies to deviations from MAI, not to all instructional error under Rule 70.03. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence1991Nakata v. Platte County R-3 School Dist, 750 S.W.2d 669, 673 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Fowler v. Park Corp.green1 sentence1991Furthermore, the concept of waiver of instructional error by failing to object at trial, as discussed in such cases as Fowler v. Park Corp., 673 S.W.2d 749, 755-757 (Mo. banc 1984) and Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68, 70-72 (Mo. banc 1984), applies to deviations from MAI, not to all instructional error under Rule 70.03. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1971Bank & Trust Co., 232 Mo. App. 412 , 109 S.W.2d 47, 49 . 1971Bank & Trust Co., 232 Mo. App. 412 , 109 S.W.2d 47, 49 . | 2 | 1969–1971 |
Allen v. Titan Propane, LLC
green
1 sentence2018Instead, as noted earlier in our opinion, the circumstances are similar to *641 Allen v. Titan Propane, LLC , 404 S.W.3d 914 , 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013), in which the defendants' motion to dismiss relied on the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata , but we found those assertions were nonetheless "sufficient to support a dismissal without prejudice on [the] different ground" of abatement. 3 More fundamentally, the concept of waiver under Rule 55.27(g) applies to a party's ability to rely upon a certain defense. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences2011Waiver is "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (emphasis added). 2011Waiver is "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Oakes v. Missouri Department of Mental Health
green
1 sentence2011She compares her actions to those of the health care provider in Oakes, 254 S.W.3d at 158 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
red
2 sentences1993Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2808 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). 1993Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2808 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Rodgers v. Rodgers
green
2 sentences1986The cases frequently cited as the underlying basis for the concept of waiver by acquiescence are Meyer v. Meyer, 493 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.App.1973), and Rodgers v. Rodgers, 505 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App.1974). 1986Meyer v. Meyer, supra; Rodgers v. Rodgers, supra. Despite the language of some of the cases mentioned above, application of the doctrine has been restricted to cases wherein circumstances over and beyond a mere express or implied agreement to accept reduced payments or a delay in demanding full payment exists. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Meyer v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1986The cases frequently cited as the underlying basis for the concept of waiver by acquiescence are Meyer v. Meyer, 493 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.App.1973), and Rodgers v. Rodgers, 505 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App.1974). 1986In Meyer , the rule that a father may not provide child support in any manner other than direct payments to the mother of the amounts ordered by the court was held subject to the exception that he should receive credit for payments made directly to the children, or to others for their benefit, provided such payments were made with the express or implied consent of the mother or under a compulsion of circumstances. 493 S.W.2d at 45 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State Ex Rel. Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1971Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 926 , cited and relied upon by appellants, the court stated ( 448 S.W.2d 931 [4]) : “Our courts have said that, ‘ * * * “The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.” * * ’ Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State Ex Rel. City of Mansfield v. Crain
green
1 sentence1969City of Mansfield v. Crain, supra. Our courts have said that, “* * * ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.’ * * *» Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W.2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular, “* * * As the Scotch law is said to have it, one cannot both approbate and reprobate at one and the same ti | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Myers v. Buchanan
green
1 sentence1965As is pointed out in an exhaustive discussion of the rule in Myers v. Buchanan, Mo., 333 S.W.2d 18 , the doctrine is predicated on the assumption that the party complaining of his opponent’s error invited or induced his opponent to commit the error. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Myers v. Ross
green
1 sentence1951"The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and *960 repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like." Myers v. Ross, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 409, 411 ; United States Fidelity & G. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.