factor defense (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

factor defense in Missouri

17 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 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.

Followed or applied (12)

CaseFollowedCited
Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospitalgreen
mo · 1993 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2012–2017
2 sentences

2017Courts sometimes discuss the substantial factor test to establish actual causation, while it is other times used for determining “proximate cause.” See Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 860-63 (discussing “substantial factor” analysis within the context of “but for” causation); Cf. Loyd v. Ozark Elec.

2012Id.

12
Ake v. Oklahomagreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–2010
2 sentences

2010Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 (“When the defendant is able to make an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent”).

2010Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 (“When the defendant is able to make an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent”).

12
Loyd v. Ozark Electric Cooperative, Inc.green
moctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 587 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) overruled by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Mo. banc 2003) (“When two forces are actively operating, and each is sufficient by itself to bring about injury or death, the acts of one may be held to be a substantial factor and thus the proximate cause of the injury or death.”).

11
Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erectiongreen
mo · 2003 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Co-op., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579, 587 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) overruled by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Mo. banc 2003) (“When two forces are actively operating, and each is sufficient by itself to bring about injury or death, the acts of one may be held to be a substantial factor and thus the proximate cause of the injury or death.”).

11
Elery v. Commonwealthgreen
ky · 2012 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Indeed, Defendant’s entire argument on this issue is confined to the following single paragraph: When the Kentucky Supreme Court examined one of its statutes concerning PBT, which made such results "inadmissible in court,” that court noted that the statute was "designed to limit the Commonwealth's proof in DUI cases, so as to require proof by the best tests results, not to limit a defendant's proof in any criminal case in which alcohol may be a factor in his defense.” Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78, 94 (Ky.2012).

11
Miller v. Wefelmeyergreen
moctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998See Quilty, 890 S.W.2d at 362 n. 1.

11
United States v. Albert John Penagreen
ca5 · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See United States v. Pena, 527 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 949 , 96 S.Ct. 3168 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976).

11
Meyer v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See United States v. Pena, 527 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 949 , 96 S.Ct. 3168 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976).

11
Pena v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See United States v. Pena, 527 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 426 U.S. 949 , 96 S.Ct. 3168 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976).

11
Ward v. Currygreen
mo · 1960 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
1 sentence

1990“The word ‘employee’ may and frequently does have many different meanings in the multitude of varying connections in which it is used.” Ward v. Curry, 341 S.W.2d 830, 835-836 (Mo.1960).

11
Giles v. Moundridge Milling Co.green
mo · 1943 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988In the operation of this principle, “‘substantial’ [denotes] the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause.” Giles v. Moundridge Milling Co., 351 Mo. 568 , 173 S.W.2d 745, 750 [6-8] (1943); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431, comment a (1965).

1988It comports well with the substantial factor rule of causation our law applies to such cases [Giles v. Moundridge Milling Co., 173 S.W.2d at 750 [6-8]; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431] to accept the relevancy of "many types of evidence — animal and in vitro experiments, epidemiological data, analogous medical cases — with fact-finders free to decide which of the many inferences urged on them are reasonable." Id.

11
Chism v. White Oak Feed Co., Inc.green
moctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
1 sentence

1988Giles v. Moundridge Milling Co., 173 S.W.2d at 750 ; Chism v. White Oak Feed Company, Inc., 612 S.W.2d 873, 881 (Mo.App.1981).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Ray Kruse Construction Co. green
mo · 1986
2 sentences

1988“A cause which meets the substantial factor test is a cause in fact.” Id.

1988“A cause which meets the substantial factor test is a cause in fact.” Id.

31986–1988
Countryside Casualty Co. v. McCormick green
moctapp · 1987
1 sentence

2024Countryside, 722 S.W.2d at 658-59 .

12024–2024
Hargis v. JLB Corp. green
mo · 2011
2 sentences

2017“A key factor in this inquiry is the legal judgment or discretion required to prepare the form.” Id.

2017“However, once it has been determined that .a particular document is legal in nature, the act of charging a fee for the preparation or completion of that document constitutes unauthorized law business, even when a non-lawyer does not exercise any legal judgment in completing the form.” Id. (emphasis added).

12017–2017
State v. Morgenroth green
moctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2013This Court should interpret the statute in a similar manner — while the State cannot use the PBT in order to prove that Appellant was intoxicated, Morgenroth, supra, the defense can use such PBT results when the results are "exculpatory,” § 577.021.3 ("favorable,” Phillips, 940 S.W.2d at 516). .

12013–2013
Caldwell v. Mississippi green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2010In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 323 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the Supreme Court made clear that this requirement specifically is applicable to requests for investigators.

2010In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 323 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the Supreme Court made clear that this requirement specifically is applicable to requests for investigators.

12010–2010
Wollen v. DePaul Health Center green
mo · 1992
1 sentence

1993We attempted to clarify in Wollen v. DePaul Health Center, 828 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. banc 1992), that the “but for” test continues to apply to the vast majority of cases in Missouri.

11993–1993
Fairmont Foods Co. v. Skelly Oil Co. green
moctapp · 1981
1 sentence

1992E.g., Fairmont Foods, 616 S.W.2d at 550 .

11992–1992
Osterberger v. Hites Construction Co. green
moctapp · 1980
1 sentence

1992It is true that public record of an undisclosed fact may not necessarily negate a party’s duty to disclose, e.g., Osterberger v. Hites, 599 S.W.2d 221, 228-229 ; however, reasonable availability of the fact to the party claiming fraudulent disclosure still remains a factor in the analysis.

11992–1992
Lydia Basko v. Sterling Drug, Inc., and Winthrop Laboratories green
ca2 · 1969
1 sentence

1988Allen v. United States, 588 F.Supp. at 418 ; Basco v. Sterling Drug Co., 416 F.2d 417 (2d Cir.1969); Gold, 96 Yale L.J. 391 ; Harris, 40 Sw.LJ. 911; M.

11988–1988
Allen v. United States green
utd · 1984
1 sentence

1988Allen v. United States, 588 F.Supp. at 418 ; Basco v. Sterling Drug Co., 416 F.2d 417 (2d Cir.1969); Gold, 96 Yale L.J. 391 ; Harris, 40 Sw.LJ. 911; M.

11988–1988
Ruetz v. Topping green
moctapp · 1970
1 sentence

1972We are of the opinion, and hold, that considering this factor and the factors discussed in Ruetz v. Topping, supra, defendants have sustained their burden of showing that the compensation paid to Norman Rosenblum was reasonable.

11972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.068 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 234 (1935–2026) TX 88 (1972–2026) WA 63 (1982–2025) CT 60 (1980–2022) NJ 57 (1976–2026) IL 56 (1984–2026) PA 55 (1947–2026) WI 50 (1979–2026) LA 48 (1992–2023) VA 46 (1985–2025) MD 45 (1985–2025) OR 36 (1983–2025) TN 28 (1995–2026) KY 26 (1965–2024) OH 25 (1988–2026) NC 22 (1983–2026) UT 21 (1955–2022) ID 21 (1990–2025) MA 20 (1976–2025) GA 19 (1986–2026) KS 19 (1970–2025) IA 18 (1994–2026) MO 17 (1972–2024) AK 16 (1976–2025) MN 16 (1986–2024) FL 15 (1985–2016) IN 15 (1978–2026) MI 15 (1997–2026) AL 15 (1889–2018) NY 14 (1907–2026) AZ 13 (1976–2021) MS 13 (1989–2025) SC 12 (1991–2025) MT 11 (1976–2021) WY 11 (1994–2024) SD 9 (1981–2017) VT 9 (1992–2025) DC 8 (1979–2021) CO 8 (2002–2026) NM 8 (1992–2014) WV 7 (1980–2024) NH 7 (1988–2018) DE 7 (1998–2024) OK 5 (1987–2002) NV 5 (1988–2020) NE 5 (1994–2013) RI 4 (1996–2019) AR 3 (1991–2003) ME 3 (1990–2007) HI 2 (2017–2020) ND 2 (1997–2017)

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