17 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. McFaddengreen2 sentences2025“This Court considers a non-exclusive list of factors in determining whether pretext exists, including: ‘the explanation in light of the circumstances; similarly situated jurors not struck; the relevance between the explanation and the case; the demeanor of the state and excluded venire members; the court’s prior experiences with the prosecutor’s office; and objective measures relating to motive.’” Gilbert, 628 S.W.3d at 708 (quoting State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 739 (Mo. banc 2012)). “[T]he exercise of peremptory challenges is the product of the subjective analyses of a wide variety of c 2021This Court considers a non-exclusive list of factors in determining whether pretext exists, including: “the explanation in light of the circumstances; similarly 6 situated jurors not struck; the relevance between the explanation and the case; the demeanor of the state and excluded venire members; the court’s prior experiences with the prosecutor’s office; and objective measures relating to motive.” State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 739 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 571 (Mo. banc 2009)). | 3 | 3 |
In the Interest of N.J.K. v. Juvenile Officergreen2 sentences2013“Interviewing techniques are also an important factor to be considered as part of the court’s totality of the circumstances analysis.” N.J.K. v. Juvenile Officer, 139 S.W.3d 250, 258 (Mo.App. 2011In re N.J.K, 139 S.W.3d at 256 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Batemangreen2 sentences2016Bateman, 318 S.W.3d at 690-91 . 2013State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681, 690-91 (Mo. banc 2010). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Antwinegreen1 sentence2025Batson does not prohibit ‘hunch’ challenges so long as racial animus is not the motive.” Gilbert, 628 S.W.3d at 709 (quoting State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51, 67 (Mo. banc 1987)) (alterations in original). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2021This Court considers a non-exclusive list of factors in determining whether pretext exists, including: “the explanation in light of the circumstances; similarly 6 situated jurors not struck; the relevance between the explanation and the case; the demeanor of the state and excluded venire members; the court’s prior experiences with the prosecutor’s office; and objective measures relating to motive.” State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 739 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 571 (Mo. banc 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Adamsgreen1 sentence1997In Adams v. Adams, 812 S.W.2d 951, 956 (Mo.App.1991), we noted that a modification of custody may involve a perspective different from the award of initial custody. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2015For example, a court also should look at “[t]he degree of logical relevance between the proffered explanation and the case to be tried in terms of the kind of crime charged, the nature of the evidence to be adduced, and the potential punishment if the defendant is convicted.... ” Parker, 836 S.W.2d at 940 . 2010For example, a court also should look at "[t]he degree of logical relevance between the proffered explanation and the case to be tried in terms of the kind of crime charged, the nature of the evidence to be adduced, and the potential punishment if the defendant is convicted...." Parker, 836 S.W.2d at 940 . | 3 | 2003–2015 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences2013In evaluating these statements, trial courts utilize a “totality of the circumstances test” and apply a non-exclusive list of the factors outlined in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). 2013In evaluating these statements, trial courts utilize a “totality of the circumstances test” and apply a non-exclusive list of the factors outlined in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). | 2 | 2009–2013 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2023In Williams, the Missouri Supreme Court set forth a non-exclusive list of factors a court could consider in determining the risks of unfair prejudice. 548 S.W.3d at 290-91 . 2023Among these are “whether the jury knows[,] or can fairly infer the defendant was punished for his past acts.” Brown, 596 S.W.3d at 209 (quoting Williams, 548 S.W.3d at 290 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2021In determining whether the State's proffered reason for the peremptory strike was merely pretextual, we "consider[] a non-exclusive list of factors . . . , including: 'the explanation in light of the circumstances; similarly situated jurors not struck; the relevance between the explanation and the case; the demeanor of the state and excluded venire members; the court's prior experiences with the 8 prosecutor's office; and objective measures relating to motive.'" Id. (quoting State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 739 (Mo. banc 2012)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Wadlow
green
1 sentence2013In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the court considers a non-exclusive list of factors, including: “(1) spontaneity and consistent repetition; (2) the mental state of the de-clarant; (3) the lack of motive to fabricate; and (4) knowledge of subject matter unexpected of a child of similar age.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 527 . 2009Id. at 527 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Redman
green
1 sentence2004Courts use a non-exclusive list of factors that are relevant to this “content-reliability analysis.” Redman, 916 S.W.2d at 790-91 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Daubert set out a non-exclusive list of factors for consideration in determining whether the evidence in question meets the flexible standard, including: (1) “whether [the theory or technique] can be (and has been) tested”; (2) “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication”; (3) “the known or potential rate of error”; and (4) “ ‘general acceptance.’ ” Id. at 593-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . 2003Daubert set out a non-exclusive list of factors for consideration in determining whether the evidence in question meets the flexible standard, including: (1) “whether [the theory or technique] can be (and has been) tested”; (2) “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication”; (3) “the known or potential rate of error”; and (4) “ ‘general acceptance.’ ” Id. at 593-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.
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.