19 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Action Contracting Corp.green2 sentences2016In unemployment compensation cases, this means that the error must explicitly refer to one of the four statutory grounds for reversal set out in section 288.210 RSMo (2000).[ ] Parker v. Action Contracting Corp., 100 S.W.3d 168, 171 (Mo.App.2003). 2012In unemployment compensation cases, this means that the error must explicitly refer to one of the four statutory grounds for reversal set out in section 288.210 RSMo (2000). 3 Parker v. Action Contracting Corp., 100 S.W.3d 168, 171 (Mo.App.2003). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence2017Rule 25.03(C) “provides a means for the defense to try to obtain information or materials which is not in the possession or control of the State, but of which the State is aware.” State v. White, 931 S.W.2d 825, 831 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Threlkel v. Milesgreen2 sentences2015See also Threlkel v. Miles, 320 Mo. 1140 , 10 S.W.2d 953, 956 (1928) (holding that irregularities alleged in connection with the issuance of a civil contempt citation were “matters of error properly cognizable- on appeal” that could not be considered in a habeas action). 2015See also Threlkel v. Miles, 320 Mo. 1140 , 10 S.W.2d 953, 956 (1928) (holding that irregularities alleged in connection with the issuance of a civil contempt citation were “matters of error properly cognizable- on appeal” that could not be considered in a habeas action). | 1 | 1 |
Jamison v. Stategreen1 sentence2004However, that the rule specifies the sentencing court as the forum in which a Rule 29.15 proceeding is the exclusive means to challenge the validity of a sentence, as well as the fact that the issue obviously was addressed in direct appeal cases such as Sanders, Porter, and Moore , compels the conclusion that Rules 29.15 and 24.035, the “post-conviction relief’ provisions, give a defendant “alternative forums [sic] in which to challenge subject matter jurisdiction; a [post-conviction] motion is the exclusive procedure for raising the claim with the trial court, and a direct appeal from the con | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tollivergreen1 sentence1999State v. Tolliver, 562 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lockegreen1 sentence1983State v. Locke, 587 S.W.2d 346, 350 (Mo.App.1979); State v. McClain, 541 S.W.2d 351, 357 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McClaingreen1 sentence1983State v. Locke, 587 S.W.2d 346, 350 (Mo.App.1979); State v. McClain, 541 S.W.2d 351, 357 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Branson v. Jordangreen2 sentences1980The Means rule was set forth in Branson v. Jordan, 571 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1978), which held that the appeal was an abuse of judicial process, and said further, “To avoid the penalty ‘the questions raised on appeal must be at least fairly debatable.’ Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50 [9-11] (Mo.App.1975).” In Wright v. Sprague, 563 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App.1978), a plaintiff’s appeal was deemed frivolous where she had generally released one defendant, and therefore had her case dismissed against another defendant. 1980The Means rule was set forth in Branson v. Jordan, 571 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1978), which held that the appeal was an abuse of judicial process, and said further, “To avoid the penalty ‘the questions raised on appeal must be at least fairly debatable.’ Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50 [9-11] (Mo.App.1975).” In Wright v. Sprague, 563 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App.1978), a plaintiff’s appeal was deemed frivolous where she had generally released one defendant, and therefore had her case dismissed against another defendant. | 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. Steidley
green
2 sentences2023First, looking at the subpoena authority of Rule 25.03(h), Missouri courts have interpreted this language as “providing a means for the defense to try to obtain information or materials which is not in the possession of the State but of which the State is aware.” 9 See Steidley, 533 S.W.3d at 772 . 2023First, looking at the subpoena authority of Rule 25.03(h), Missouri courts have interpreted this language as providing “a means for the defense to try to obtain information or materials which is not in the possession or control of the State, but of which the State is aware.” See Steidley, 533 S.W.3d at 772 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Bland
green
2 sentences2015Co. v. Bland, 189 Mo. 197 , 88 S.W. 28 (1905) (rejecting a writ of prohibition as an appropriate means to challenge a civil contempt judgment because appellate relief is available). 2015Co. v. Bland, 189 Mo. 197 , 88 S.W. 28 (1905) (rejecting a writ of prohibition as an appropriate means to challenge a civil contempt judgment because appellate relief is available). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1998Davis, 415 U.S. at 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 . 1998Davis, 415 U.S. at 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Mayes
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence1982State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744 , 749—750[6] (Mo.App.1981) and the many cases there cited. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wright v. Sprague
green
2 sentences1980The Means rule was set forth in Branson v. Jordan, 571 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1978), which held that the appeal was an abuse of judicial process, and said further, “To avoid the penalty ‘the questions raised on appeal must be at least fairly debatable.’ Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50 [9-11] (Mo.App.1975).” In Wright v. Sprague, 563 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App.1978), a plaintiff’s appeal was deemed frivolous where she had generally released one defendant, and therefore had her case dismissed against another defendant. 1980The Means rule was set forth in Branson v. Jordan, 571 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1978), which held that the appeal was an abuse of judicial process, and said further, “To avoid the penalty ‘the questions raised on appeal must be at least fairly debatable.’ Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50 [9-11] (Mo.App.1975).” In Wright v. Sprague, 563 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App.1978), a plaintiff’s appeal was deemed frivolous where she had generally released one defendant, and therefore had her case dismissed against another defendant. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division
green
2 sentences1980The Means rule was set forth in Branson v. Jordan, 571 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1978), which held that the appeal was an abuse of judicial process, and said further, “To avoid the penalty ‘the questions raised on appeal must be at least fairly debatable.’ Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50 [9-11] (Mo.App.1975).” In Wright v. Sprague, 563 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App.1978), a plaintiff’s appeal was deemed frivolous where she had generally released one defendant, and therefore had her case dismissed against another defendant. 1980The Means rule was set forth in Branson v. Jordan, 571 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1978), which held that the appeal was an abuse of judicial process, and said further, “To avoid the penalty ‘the questions raised on appeal must be at least fairly debatable.’ Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50 [9-11] (Mo.App.1975).” In Wright v. Sprague, 563 S.W.2d 165 (Mo.App.1978), a plaintiff’s appeal was deemed frivolous where she had generally released one defendant, and therefore had her case dismissed against another defendant. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Rose
green
1 sentence1973State v. Rose, 325 S.W.2d 485 (Mo., 1959). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Gettys v. American Car & Foundry Co.
green
2 sentences1935Railroad Co. (Mo.), 271 S.W. 500 ; Gettys v. American Car Foundry Co., 322 Mo. 787 , 16 S.W.2d 85 .] Plaintiff did testify that one of the doctors had told him to get an iliac belt and that he had said that he "did not have the means to test it out," to which there was no objection or motion to strike out by defendant at the time. 1935Railroad Co. (Mo.), 271 S.W. 500 ; Gettys v. American Car Foundry Co., 322 Mo. 787 , 16 S.W.2d 85 .] Plaintiff did testify that one of the doctors had told him to get an iliac belt and that he had said that he "did not have the means to test it out," to which there was no objection or motion to strike out by defendant at the time. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences1910Cross-examination, from time immemorial, has been the great test of credibility of any witness.” [State v. Myers, 221 Mo. 598 ; State v. Miller, 190 Mo. l. c. 463; State v. McKenzie, 102 Mo. l. c. 632; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. l. c. 81; State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo. l. c. 174.] The cross-examination need not be confined to a mere categorical review of the matters stated in the direct examination, but the same may be employed as a means to test the truth of the evidence given in such direct examination. [State v. Myers, supra; State v. Miller, 156 Mo. l. c. 85; State v. Fisher, 162 Mo. l. c. 1910Cross-examination, from time immemorial, has been the great test of credibility of any witness.” [State v. Myers, 221 Mo. 598 ; State v. Miller, 190 Mo. l. c. 463; State v. McKenzie, 102 Mo. l. c. 632; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. l. c. 81; State v. Cunningham, 154 Mo. l. c. 174.] The cross-examination need not be confined to a mere categorical review of the matters stated in the direct examination, but the same may be employed as a means to test the truth of the evidence given in such direct examination. [State v. Myers, supra; State v. Miller, 156 Mo. l. c. 85; State v. Fisher, 162 Mo. l. c. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.