Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2023 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). | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of: J.A.R., D.K.R., and A.E.R., Children Under Seventeen Years of Age, Greene County Juvenile Office v. D.G.R.green1 sentence2023That is, “an ‘against-the-weight-of-the-evidence’ analysis which is distinctly different than a claim that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence,” J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Mo. banc 2014), obviously differs also from claims that the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law. | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Dempseygreen1 sentence2023See Rule 84.04(d)(1); T.G., 648 S.W.3d at 48; see also In re Marriage of Strobel, 585 S.W.3d 862 , 865 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (finding a point relied on was deficient for lacking the essential “legal reason why” and 3 “A response that does not comply with this Rule 74.04(c)(2) with respect to any numbered paragraph in movant’s statement is an admission of the truth of that numbered paragraph.” Rule 74.04(c)(2). 4 “Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that for reasons stated in the affidavits facts essential to justify opposition to the motion cannot be presented in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gainesgreen1 sentence2016State v. Gaines, 316 S.W.3d 440, 447 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Lemay v. Hardingreen1 sentence2016Lemay v. Hardin, 108 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc.green1 sentence2008Her second and third points are equally deficient. “ ‘The requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory and must be strictly applied.’” Brown, 211 S.W.3d at 147 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Paull v. Paullgreen1 sentence2007Paull v. Paull, 819 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Lyles v. Robert Half Corp.green1 sentence2007“It is not sufficient to merely set out what the alleged errors are, as [Claimant] has done in this case, without stating why the ruling is erroneous.” Lyles v. Robert Half Corp., 219 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Carmack v. Carmackgreen1 sentence2005Carmack v. Carmack, 148 S.W.3d 321, 322 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Waint v. M.B.green1 sentence2004Richmond v. Springfield Rehab & Healthcare, 138 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Mo.App. 2004); In Interest of T.B., 963 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Mo.App.1997); Hulsey, 557 S.W.2d at 716-17 . | 1 | 1 |
Richmond v. Springfield Rehab & Healthcaregreen1 sentence2004Richmond v. Springfield Rehab & Healthcare, 138 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Mo.App. 2004); In Interest of T.B., 963 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Mo.App.1997); Hulsey, 557 S.W.2d at 716-17 . | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Davenportgreen1 sentence2003“Without a concise statement of a legal reason for a claim of reversible error, there can be no explanation, in the context of the case, supportive of a claimed error.” Hampton v. Davenport, 86 S.W.3d 494, 497 (Mo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Kline v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2002Kline v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Mo.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Perkel v. Stringfellowgreen1 sentence2001Rule 84.04(d)(4); Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 146-47 (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2014Id. | 3 | 2014–2023 |
Murphy v. Carron
green
1 sentence2023We disagree. 5 We first note that Plaintiffs’ point does not comply with Rule 84.04 as it fails to state the legal reason for the claim of reversible error in violation of Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B).3 This failure is especially critical in a review governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976), as here, because each Murphy ground is a separate, distinct legal claim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hulsey
green
1 sentence2004Richmond v. Springfield Rehab & Healthcare, 138 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Mo.App. 2004); In Interest of T.B., 963 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Mo.App.1997); Hulsey, 557 S.W.2d at 716-17 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.