What defendant in Missouri

18 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2006 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 (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Wilsongreen moctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006Defendant was not entitled to have the jury instructed in the manner set forth in Instruction No. X. “[Bjefore any party is entitled to an instruction, there must be evidence to support its submission, and absent that evidentiary basis, it is not error to refuse the submission of an instruction.” State v. Wilson, 105 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Mo.App.2003).	1	1
Kelley v. Missouri Department of Revenuegreen moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994Kelley v. Missouri Dept. of Revenue, 827 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Mo.App.1992).	1	1
Stafford v. McCarthygreen moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994Louis v. Stubley, 154 S.W.2d 407 , 410 (Mo.App.1941) (“In any case good pleading requires that the parties be specifically named and the allegations be sufficient to advise the defendant and the court of what the claim is and who the defendant is”) and Stafford v. McCarthy, 825 S.W.2d 650, 658 (Mo.App.1992) (“The prayer is no[t] part of the petition and may be disregarded in determining what relief, if any, is authorized by the petition.”) The trial court’s order naming the Director as a party does not make him a party.	1	1
State v. Burnsgreen moctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984As Somerville, P.J., astutely distinguished in State v. Bums, 671 S.W.2d 306, 311-312 [8, 9] (Mo.App.1984), there is a material difference between that of which defendant here complains and the infrequently encountered rule of “destructive testimony” or “destructive contradictions.” As made clear in the reported opinion, the rule anent “destructive testimony” or “destructive contradictions” applies only to the respective elements of a witness’s testimony at trial — not to contradictions between trial testimony and pretrial statements made during preliminary out-of-court investigations.	1	1
Bloom v. Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers & Land Surveyorsgreen moctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984Defendants contend that “the language of the statute does not require the published notice to contain ‘township’ and ‘range’ or abbreviations therefore (sic), but merely indicates that letters ‘may’ be used to denote the township and range.” True enough it is, as defendants assert, that use of the word “may,” as opposed to “shall,” generally means that the statute in question is permissive and not mandatory [Bloom v. Missouri Board for Architects, P.E. and L.S., 474 S.W.2d 861, 864 [1] (Mo.App.1971)], but that which § 140.180-1 “permits” is the use of the specified abbreviations in place of th	1	1
Lolordo v. Lacygreen mo · 1935 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 2 sentences 1959Lolordo v. Lacy, 337 Mo. 1097 , 88 S.W.2d 353, 355 [3-7] ; Missouri Cafeteria v. McVey, 362 Mo. 583 , 242 S.W.2d 549, 555, 556 ; Hall v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 60, 64 [2, 3]. 1959Lolordo v. Lacy, 337 Mo. 1097 , 88 S.W.2d 353, 355 [3-7] ; Missouri Cafeteria v. McVey, 362 Mo. 583 , 242 S.W.2d 549, 555, 556 ; Hall v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 60, 64 [2, 3].	1	1
Missouri Cafeteria, Inc. v. McVeygreen mo · 1951 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 2 sentences 1959Lolordo v. Lacy, 337 Mo. 1097 , 88 S.W.2d 353, 355 [3-7] ; Missouri Cafeteria v. McVey, 362 Mo. 583 , 242 S.W.2d 549, 555, 556 ; Hall v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 60, 64 [2, 3]. 1959Lolordo v. Lacy, 337 Mo. 1097 , 88 S.W.2d 353, 355 [3-7] ; Missouri Cafeteria v. McVey, 362 Mo. 583 , 242 S.W.2d 549, 555, 556 ; Hall v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 60, 64 [2, 3].	1	1
Hall v. Brookshiregreen moctapp · 1955 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 1 sentence 1959Lolordo v. Lacy, 337 Mo. 1097 , 88 S.W.2d 353, 355 [3-7] ; Missouri Cafeteria v. McVey, 362 Mo. 583 , 242 S.W.2d 549, 555, 556 ; Hall v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 60, 64 [2, 3].	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 (34)

Case	Cited	Years
Lincoln Credit Co. v. Peach green mo · 1982 1 sentence 1992Lincoln Credit v. Peach, 636 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. banc 1982), outlines the ramifications of art.	1	1992–1992
Sanger v. Yellow Cab Company, Inc. green mo · 1972 1 sentence 1992However, Sanger concludes, 486 S.W.2d at 481 -482: “What defendant was interested in was a release of liability from plaintiff and it cannot be said that defendant would not have entered into the release had its representative actually known of plaintiff’s injuries. * * * * * * The injured party is not required to make a settlement, and the general rule of freedom of contract includes the freedom to make a bad bargain.” Under Sanger there was no mutual mistake here to nullify the agreement.	1	1992–1992
State v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. green texapp · 1981 1 sentence 1985As explained in State v. Haymon, 616 S.W.2d 305 [4] (Mo. banc 1981) the court ruled: “What defendant overlooks is that the memorandum, as discussed earlier, was a nullity with respect to accomplishing any change in the charge.	1	1985–1985
Rossi v. Davis green · 1939 2 sentences 1966Rossi v. Davis et al., 345 Mo. 362 , 133 S.W.2d 363 , loc. cit. 373, 125 A.L.R. 1111 , and cases there cited. 1966Rossi v. Davis et al., 345 Mo. 362 , 133 S.W.2d 363 , loc. cit. 373, 125 A.L.R. 1111 , and cases there cited.	1	1966–1966
Norwood v. Norwood green mo · 1944 2 sentences 1966What defendant refers to as the doctrine of estoppel by verdict and judgment is aptly stated in Norwood v. Norwood, 353 Mo. 548 , 183 S.W.2d 118, 1 . c. 122-123: “Generally, in order to have estoppel by a former judgment (res adjudi-cata), there must be: (1) Identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made. 1966What defendant refers to as the doctrine of estoppel by verdict and judgment is aptly stated in Norwood v. Norwood, 353 Mo. 548 , 183 S.W.2d 118, 1 . c. 122-123: “Generally, in order to have estoppel by a former judgment (res adjudi-cata), there must be: (1) Identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.	1	1966–1966
Smith v. Kansas City neutral mo · 1895 2 sentences 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann. 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann.	1	1963–1963
Reed v. Peck, Guitar & Watson green mo · 1901 2 sentences 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann. 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann.	1	1963–1963
Moss v. Mindlin's, Inc. green mo · 1957 1 sentence 1963Neither could that contention be sustained for, as pointed out in Moss v. Mindlin’s, Inc., supra, 301 S.W. 2d at 769 , the rule in this state is that a permanent injury is a separate element of damage aside from pecuniary loss (see Meierotto v. Thompson, 356 Mo. 32 , 201 S. W.2d 161 ) and, quoting from the Moss case at the citation given above, “ * * * impairment of earning capacity, past or future, is not necessarily included in, nor does it necessarily result from, a permanent injury.” What defendant does contend, as stated in her motion for new trial and in her brief, is that this instructi	1	1963–1963
Sperry v. Hurd green · 1916 2 sentences 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann. 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann.	1	1963–1963
Meierotto v. Thompson green · 1947 2 sentences 1963Neither could that contention be sustained for, as pointed out in Moss v. Mindlin’s, Inc., supra, 301 S.W. 2d at 769 , the rule in this state is that a permanent injury is a separate element of damage aside from pecuniary loss (see Meierotto v. Thompson, 356 Mo. 32 , 201 S. W.2d 161 ) and, quoting from the Moss case at the citation given above, “ * * * impairment of earning capacity, past or future, is not necessarily included in, nor does it necessarily result from, a permanent injury.” What defendant does contend, as stated in her motion for new trial and in her brief, is that this instructi 1963Neither could that contention be sustained for, as pointed out in Moss v. Mindlin’s, Inc., supra, 301 S.W. 2d at 769 , the rule in this state is that a permanent injury is a separate element of damage aside from pecuniary loss (see Meierotto v. Thompson, 356 Mo. 32 , 201 S. W.2d 161 ) and, quoting from the Moss case at the citation given above, “ * * * impairment of earning capacity, past or future, is not necessarily included in, nor does it necessarily result from, a permanent injury.” What defendant does contend, as stated in her motion for new trial and in her brief, is that this instructi	1	1963–1963
Tegeler v. Kansas City neutral moctapp · 1902 2 sentences 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann. 1963Young v. Home Telephone Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 635 ; Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Tegler et ux. v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.App. 162 , 68 S.W. 953 ; Reed v. Peck et al., 163 Mo. 333 , 63 S.W. 734 ; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23 , 30 S.W. 314 .” What defendants contend is that there was insufficient evidence on either standard to support the amount awarded Kahmann.	1	1963–1963
State v. Wellman green mo · 1913 1 sentence 1954What defendant now says in his assignments of error is that this latter statement referred back to the previous one about the eyes of Kirkwood being on the panel and emphasized the fact that defendant was charged with other crimes to prejudice the minds of the jury, citing State v. Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 .	1	1954–1954
State v. Lasson. green · 1922 2 sentences 1954S.W. 795; State v. Lasson, 292 Mo. 155 , 238 S.W. 101 ; State v. Leonard, Mo.Sup., 182 S.W.2d 548 . 1954S.W. 795; State v. Lasson, 292 Mo. 155 , 238 S.W. 101 ; State v. Leonard, Mo.Sup., 182 S.W.2d 548 .	1	1954–1954
Cunningham v. Moody neutral idaho · 1891 1 sentence 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
Caldwell v. McKenna green · 1934 1 sentence 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
In Re Estate of Prunty green iowa · 1926 1 sentence 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
Wahl v. Cunningham green · 1932 2 sentences 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel. 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
Wahl v. Cunningham green · 1928 2 sentences 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel. 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried neutral ca2 · 1932 1 sentence 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
State-Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Victoria green ca4 · 1935 1 sentence 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
Chase Nat. Bank of New York v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland neutral ca2 · 1935 1 sentence 1936Clearly that is a contract of indemnity. [Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 64, 6 S.W.2d 576 , Id., 332 Mo. 21 , 56 S.W.2d 1052 ; Chase National Bank v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 79 F.2d 84 ; State-Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. First National Bank, 76 F.2d 527 ; Niagara Share Corp. v. Fried, 61 F.2d 740 ; Green v. Newmark (Cal.), 28 P. 395 ; Caldwell v. McKenna (Idaho), 33 P.2d 366 ; In re Prunty's Estate (Iowa), 207 N.W. 785 ; Commonwealth ex rel.	1	1936–1936
Thorpe v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. green mo · 1886 1 sentence 1935Both the assignment of error and the point made are too indefinite to present any matter for review. [Thorpe v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 89 Mo. 650 , 2 S.W. 3 ; Hamilton v. Crowe, 175 Mo. 634 , 75 S.W. 389 ; Hume v. Hale, 146 Mo. App. 659 , 125 S.W. 871 .] The fifth and final assignment of error made is that the court erred in giving an instruction for plaintiff for a directed verdict.	1	1935–1935
Hamilton v. Crowe green · 1903	1	1935–1935
Wahlig v. Krenning-Schlapp Grocer Co. green · 1930	1	1935–1935
Shroyer v. Missouri Livestock Commission Co. green mo · 1933	1	1935–1935
Duggan v. Toombs-Fay Sash & Door Co. neutral moctapp · 1933	1	1935–1935
Hume v. Hale neutral moctapp · 1910	1	1935–1935
Baker v. Lane neutral mo · 1897	1	1910–1910
Sconce v. Long Bell Lumber Co. neutral moctapp · 1893	1	1910–1910
Taylor v. Larkin neutral · 1848	1	1910–1910
Gage v. Trawick neutral moctapp · 1902	1	1908–1908
State v. Murphy neutral · 1901	1	1908–1908
Clarke v. Inhabitants of the Town of Brookfield neutral · 1884	1	1901–1901
O'Brien v. Wagner neutral · 1887	1	1901–1901

Where else courts name it

CA 83 (1914–2026) IL 70 (1905–2026) NY 33 (1890–2020) PA 22 (1923–2020) MO 18 (1901–2006) OR 18 (1972–2025) MI 15 (1976–2024) AL 14 (1883–2026) TX 13 (1946–2022) WV 13 (1912–2023) NC 9 (1886–2013) MT 8 (1934–2000) OH 8 (1989–2022) NJ 8 (1911–2023) IN 8 (1886–2016) CO 8 (1976–2020) AZ 8 (1953–2021) CT 6 (1987–2007) GA 6 (1917–2025) MS 5 (1973–2016) DE 5 (1978–2024) MD 4 (1995–2018) KS 4 (1924–2004) NM 4 (1972–2024) IA 4 (1965–2018) WA 4 (1971–2020) LA 3 (1914–1986) WY 3 (1969–2018) MN 3 (1918–1985) KY 2 (1935–2018) ME 2 (1887–2010) MA 2 (1977–1987) UT 2 (1991–2016) VT 2 (1974–1991) FL 2 (1999–1999) WI 2 (1981–2008) RI 2 (1882–2005)

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