Murphy standard in Missouri

18 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2020 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.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc.green moctapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009 2 sentences 2009Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005). 2009Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005).	2	2
Klaus v. Shelbygreen moctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009 2 sentences 2009Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005). 2009Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005).	2	2
Murphy v. Carrongreen mo · 1976 · cited in 4 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–2020 2 sentences 2020“Under the Murphy standard, we must affirm the trial court’s decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” Id. (citing Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32 ). 2020“Under the Murphy standard, we must affirm the trial court’s decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” Id. (citing Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32 ).	1	4
Houston v. Cridergreen moctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020“When reviewing a court-tried case, we view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 2020“When reviewing a court-tried case, we view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted).	1	1
Kelly v. Cape Cod Potato Chip Co.green mowd · 2015 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See Kelly, 81 F.Supp.3d at 762 .	1	1
State v. Goodengreen moctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Gooden, 962 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo.App. 2014See State v. Gooden, 962 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo.App.	1	1
State v. Hawthornegreen moctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See, e.g., State v. Hawthorne, 74 S.W.3d 826, 828 (Mo.App. 2012See, e.g., State v. Hawthorne, 74 S.W.3d 826, 828 (Mo.App.	1	1
Binger v. City of Independencegreen mo · 1979 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011Cf. Binger v. City of Independence, 588 S.W.2d 481, 488 (Mo. banc 1979).	1	1
Bell v. Bellgreen moctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005). 2009Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005).	1	1
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Smithgreen mo · 1985 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Bell v. Bell, 849 687 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc. 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005). 2007Bell v. Bell, 849 687 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.1993); Klaus v. Shelby, 42 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Mo.App.2001); CBD Enterprises, Inc. v. Braco Manufacturing, Inc. 181 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo.App.2005).	1	1
Selby v. Selbygreen moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Selby v. Selby, 149 S.W.3d 472, 482 (Mo.App. 2005Selby v. Selby, 149 S.W.3d 472, 482 (Mo.App.	1	1
Mehra v. Mehragreen mo · 1991 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998Id. at 32 [1], In Mehra v. Mehra, 819 S.W.2d 351, 353 [1] (Mo. banc 1991), the court held the Murphy standard applies to appellate review of decrees of dissolution of marriage. 1998Id. at 32 [1], In Mehra v. Mehra, 819 S.W.2d 351, 353 [1] (Mo. banc 1991), the court held the Murphy standard applies to appellate review of decrees of dissolution of marriage.	1	1
Marriage of M.P. v. S.P.green moctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997M.P. v. S.P., 793 S.W.2d 510, 511 (Mo.App.1990). 1997M.P. v. S.P., 793 S.W.2d 510, 511 (Mo.App.1990).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Aviation Supply Corp. v. R.S.B.I. Aerospace, Inc. green moctapp · 1993 2 sentences 1995Id. 1995Id.	2	1995–1995
Dardick v. Dardick green mo · 1984 2 sentences 1994Dardick, 670 S.W.2d at 868 . 1994Dardick, 670 S.W.2d at 868 .	2	1994–1994
Parr v. Parr green mo · 2000 2 sentences 2019See infra, note 4. 4 Parr is the only opinion of this Court to have added an additional clause to the Murphy standard of review: that appellate courts will not interfere with an apportionment unless "it is grossly excessive or inadequate." 16 S.W.3d at 336 . 2019See infra, note 4. 4 Parr is the only opinion of this Court to have added an additional clause to the Murphy standard of review: that appellate courts will not interfere with an apportionment unless "it is grossly excessive or inadequate." 16 S.W.3d at 336 .	1	2019–2019
In Re the Marriage of Bradford green moctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1981In light of the fact that there is no evidence of unfitness of either parent and that the best interests of the children are served by exposure to both, in Re Marriage of Bradford, 557 S.W.2d 720 (Mo.App.1977), the denial of this part of the wife’s motion is affirmed. 1981In light of the fact that there is no evidence of unfitness of either parent and that the best interests of the children are served by exposure to both, in Re Marriage of Bradford, 557 S.W.2d 720 (Mo.App.1977), the denial of this part of the wife’s motion is affirmed.	1	1981–1981
Carpenter-Union Hills Cemetery Ass'n v. Camp Zoe, Inc. green moctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1978The Murphy standard was applied in review of an injunctive proceeding in Carpenter-Union Hills Cemetery Ass’n v. Camp Zoe, Inc., 547 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1977). 1978The Murphy standard was applied in review of an injunctive proceeding in Carpenter-Union Hills Cemetery Ass’n v. Camp Zoe, Inc., 547 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1977).	1	1978–1978

Where else courts name it

MO 18 (1978–2020) FL 17 (1979–2019) CA 14 (1957–2025) TX 13 (1928–2024) GA 12 (1989–2026) NY 11 (1987–2024) VA 6 (1989–2024) OH 6 (2001–2015) WA 6 (2002–2020) NH 5 (1996–2024) OK 5 (1997–2018) MS 4 (2001–2024) IN 4 (1987–2020) MD 4 (1981–2001) IL 4 (1990–2020) ID 3 (1976–2012) PA 3 (1993–2017) NE 3 (1982–2007) LA 3 (1985–2006) SC 3 (2007–2018) KY 3 (1980–2008) DE 2 (2008–2022) OR 2 (1978–1985) NC 2 (1982–2000) MT 2 (2003–2018) AL 2 (2009–2012) DC 2 (1981–2004) MA 2 (2001–2026) AZ 2 (1991–2019) ME 2 (1975–2004) CO 2 (1993–1996) ND 2 (1913–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check