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 1974–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Health Midwest Development Groupgreen2 sentences2022Grp., 58 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Mo. banc 2001). 2022Grp., 58 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Mo. banc 2001). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Turner-Beygreen2 sentences1993State v. Turner-Bey, 812 S.W.2d 799, 805 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Smith, 806 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Mo.App.1991). 1992State v. Turner-Bey, 812 S.W.2d 799, 805 (Mo.App.1991). “[0]nce a pattern instruction has been adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court, the appellate courts are powerless to declare the instruction erroneous.” State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986). | 2 | 2 |
Sheehan v. Sheehangreen1 sentence2022Nguyen, 353 S.W.3d at 729 -30 (citing Sheehan v. Sheehan, 901 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo. banc 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Brian Nail v. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLPgreen1 sentence2016See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Calvertgreen1 sentence2015We cited to the Missouri Supreme Court's analysis in State v. Calvert, 682 S.W.2d 474, 478 (Mo. banc 1984), and noted that "a site test is of questionable utility in the *931 case of a moving radar device” and proceeded to apply the test for reliability of evidence relating to a moving radar device. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Thomasgreen2 sentences2012Likewise, wanting to avoid the application of a Missouri statute and Missouri Supreme Court rule is not ‘duress.’ ” Furthermore, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s judgment that Mr. Stoner was not so pressured as to be “bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract.” Thomas v. Thomas (In re Marriage of Thomas), 199 S.W.3d 847, 859 (Mo.App. 2012Likewise, wanting to avoid the application of a Missouri statute and Missouri Supreme Court rule is not ‘duress.’ ” Furthermore, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s judgment that Mr. Stoner was not so pressured as to be “bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract.” Thomas v. Thomas (In re Marriage of Thomas), 199 S.W.3d 847, 859 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Denton Construction Co.green1 sentence1999On appeal, National urges that this analysis is inconsistent with the Missouri Supreme Court’s analysis in Johnson v" Denton Constmction Co. et al., 911 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Mo.bane 1995) and subsequent appellate court decisions applying the rule of Johnson. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1993State v. Turner-Bey, 812 S.W.2d 799, 805 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Smith, 806 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen1 sentence1992State v. Turner-Bey, 812 S.W.2d 799, 805 (Mo.App.1991). “[0]nce a pattern instruction has been adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court, the appellate courts are powerless to declare the instruction erroneous.” State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mickgreen1 sentence1991State v. Fowler, 762 S.W.2d 540, 541 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Mick, 674 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fowlergreen1 sentence1991State v. Fowler, 762 S.W.2d 540, 541 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Mick, 674 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
White v. Swensongreen2 sentences1974However, the Missouri Supreme Court's standard for probable cause as applied to the facts in Berstein was subsequently held invalid in White v. Swenson, 301 F.Supp. 447, 462-463 (W.D.Mo.1969). 1974However, the Missouri Supreme Court’s standard for probable cause as applied to the facts in Berstein was subsequently held invalid in White v. Swenson, 301 F.Supp. 447, 462-463 (W.D.Mo.1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nguyen v. Grain Valley R-5 School District
green
1 sentence2022Nguyen, 353 S.W.3d at 729 -30 (citing Sheehan v. Sheehan, 901 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo. banc 1995)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Blakely v. Blakely
green
1 sentence2018Visitation plan (Point III) Finally, Mother claims that the trial court's visitation plan is not narrowly drawn to be minimally intrusive on Mother's parental rights, contravening Missouri Supreme Court instruction to that effect in Herndon v. Tuhey and Blakely v. Blakely. 857 S.W.2d at 210-11 ; 83 S.W.3d at 548 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Komosa v. Komosa
green
1 sentence2018In support of her position, Mother cites Komosa v. Komosa , 939 S.W.2d 479 , 483 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), but the facts of that case are readily distinguishable. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Herndon v. Tuhey
green
1 sentence2018Visitation plan (Point III) Finally, Mother claims that the trial court's visitation plan is not narrowly drawn to be minimally intrusive on Mother's parental rights, contravening Missouri Supreme Court instruction to that effect in Herndon v. Tuhey and Blakely v. Blakely. 857 S.W.2d at 210-11 ; 83 S.W.3d at 548 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pero v. Clark
green
1 sentence2015Rawlins, 932 S.W.2d at 451-52 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Guyer v. City of Kirkwood
green
1 sentence2013Appellants rely on the Missouri Supreme Court’s presumption in Guyer that if the citizen complaint implicated the officer in criminal conduct, the resulting report concerned that criminal conduct, and thus the resulting report should be disclosed. 38 S.W.3d at 415 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Swofford v. State
green
2 sentences2011The Swojford court claimed that the court of appeals “can take action to enforce a Missouri Supreme Court rule even if no party objects, because parties cannot waive compliance with court rules.” Id. 2011The Swojford court claimed that the court of appeals “can take action to enforce a Missouri Supreme Court rule even if no party objects, because parties cannot waive compliance with court rules.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Thornton v. United States
green
2 sentences2005The U.S. Supreme Court, in Thornton v. U.S., 541 U.S. 615 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), considered whether the rule in Belton that permits the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle a suspect has recently been driving applied not only where the suspect was in the vehicle when first confronted by the law enforcement officer but also where a law enforcement officer first confronted the suspect after the suspect had exited the vehicle. 2005The U.S. Supreme Court, in Thornton v. U.S., 541 U.S. 615 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), considered whether the rule in Belton that permits the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle a suspect has recently been driving applied not only where the suspect was in the vehicle when first confronted by the law enforcement officer but also where a law enforcement officer first confronted the suspect after the suspect had exited the vehicle. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ostermueller v. Potter
green
2 sentences1998Finally, Father cites State v. Reese, 920 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.banc 1996), and Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.banc 1993), for the principle that where there exists a con tradiction between a statute and a Missouri Supreme Court rule, the rule shall govern. 1998Finally, Father cites State v. Reese, 920 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.banc 1996), and Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.banc 1993), for the principle that where there exists a con tradiction between a statute and a Missouri Supreme Court rule, the rule shall govern. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Reese
green
2 sentences1998Finally, Father cites State v. Reese, 920 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.banc 1996), and Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.banc 1993), for the principle that where there exists a con tradiction between a statute and a Missouri Supreme Court rule, the rule shall govern. 1998Finally, Father cites State v. Reese, 920 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.banc 1996), and Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.banc 1993), for the principle that where there exists a con tradiction between a statute and a Missouri Supreme Court rule, the rule shall govern. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.
green
1 sentence1996They assert that it constitutes an interference with the right to a jury trial in violation of Article I, § 22(a), and violates the restrictions on the Missouri Supreme Court’s rule-making authority under Article V, § 5. “[A] summary judgment entered on a properly plead and supported motion does not deny due process.” ITT, 854 S.W.2d at 378 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Berstein
green
2 sentences1974The court in Berstein had applied the following standard in holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest without a warrant: "The officer must not act arbitrarily, but must exercise his discretion in a legal manner, using all reasonable means to prevent mistakes [and] ... must be actuated by such motives as would influence a reasonable man acting in good faith." State v. Berstein, supra, 372 S.W.2d at 59 . 1974The court in Berstein had applied the following standard in holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest without a warrant: “The officer must not act arbitrarily, but must exercise his discretion in a legal manner, using all reasonable means to prevent mistakes [and] . . . must be actuated by such motives as would influence a reasonable man acting in good faith.” State v. Berstein, supra, 372 S.W.2d at 59 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |