Relator motion in Missouri

17 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1872–2015 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State ex rel. American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Clarkgreen moctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015Cf. Clark, 243 S.W.3d at 529 (finding that an objection to discovery requests, alleged to lack specificity under Rule 58.01(c)(3), was preserved where the record revealed that the parties understood the specific basis for the objection at hearings on a motion to compel production).	1	1
State ex rel. Mayberry v. City of Rollagreen moctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006See Mayberry, 970 S.W.2d at 909 .	1	1
Hubbs v. Hubbsgreen moctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See Dycus v. Cross, 869 S.W.2d 745, 751 (Mo.banc 1994); Hubbs v. Hubbs, 870 S.W.2d 901, 907 [7] (Mo.App.1994).	1	1
Dycus v. Crossgreen mo · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See Dycus v. Cross, 869 S.W.2d 745, 751 (Mo.banc 1994); Hubbs v. Hubbs, 870 S.W.2d 901, 907 [7] (Mo.App.1994).	1	1
State Ex Rel. Director of Revenue v. Scottgreen mo · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999Director of Revenue v. Scott, 919 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Mo.1996), stating that, “The purpose of the notice of hearing requirement is to allow the opposing party the opportunity to contest the application.” Id. at 248 . 1999Director of Revenue v. Scott, 919 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Mo.1996), stating that, “The purpose of the notice of hearing requirement is to allow the opposing party the opportunity to contest the application.” Id. at 248 .	1	1
Derfelt v. Yocomgreen mo · 1985 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986However, because prohibition is an extraordinary remedy which should only be employed in unequivocal eases, Derfelt v. Yocum, 692 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Mo. banc 1985), we will examine whether the allegations of the petition are sufficient to permit the underlying action to proceed against the relator under the exception to immunity invoked by plaintiffs.	1	1
State ex rel. Burke v. Rossgreen moctapp · 1967 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983State ex rel Burke v. Ross, 420 S.W.2d 365,368 (Mo.App.1967); Norfolk and Western Railroad Co. v. Dowd, 448 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1969). (4) Relator’s motion to compel further discovery was filed subsequently to Beneficial Corporation’s motions to quash service and to dismiss relator’s notice to take deposition.	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 (14)

Case	Cited	Years
State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Bates green mo · 1927 2 sentences 1996State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Bates, 317 Mo. 696 , 296 S.W. 418 (banc 1927). 1996State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Bates, 317 Mo. 696 , 296 S.W. 418 (banc 1927).	2	1996–1996
Ring v. Arizona green scotus · 2002 2 sentences 2004Because this case was tried after the United States Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the principles set out in Ring must be applied to it. 2004Because this case was tried after the United States Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the principles set out in Ring must be applied to it.	1	2004–2004
State v. Whitfield green mo · 2003 2 sentences 2004Instead, when this Court decided State v. Whitfield, 107 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. banc 2003), on June 17, 2003, Mr. Baker filed what he labeled as a "supplemental" motion in which he asserted that the court was required by 493 Whitfield to enter a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole. 2004*Instead, when this Court decided State v. Whitfield, 107 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. banc 2003), on June 17, 2003, Mr. Baker filed what he labeled as a “supplemental” motion in which he asserted that the court was required by Whitfield , to enter a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole.	1	2004–2004
Kilmer v. Hui Chan Mun green mo · 2000 1 sentence 2001Plaintiffs op posed the motion by relying on Kilmer v. Mun, 17 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. banc 2000), where the Supreme Court struck down the requirement in § 537.053.3 that a “dram shop” claim is authorized only when the liquor licensee has been convicted or received a suspended imposition of sentence for violating § 311.310. 2 Plaintiffs argued that they had no claim against Relator prior to Kilmer , and, therefore, the limitation period did not commence until Kilmer was decided on May 9, 2000.	1	2001–2001
STATE, EX REL. KNIGHT v. Harman green moctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2000Knight, 961 S.W.2d at 955 .	1	2000–2000
State Ex Rel. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Gowd green mo · 1969 1 sentence 1983State ex rel Burke v. Ross, 420 S.W.2d 365,368 (Mo.App.1967); Norfolk and Western Railroad Co. v. Dowd, 448 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1969). (4) Relator’s motion to compel further discovery was filed subsequently to Beneficial Corporation’s motions to quash service and to dismiss relator’s notice to take deposition.	1	1983–1983
Vandover, Receiver v. Lbr. Underwriters neutral ark · 1939 2 sentences 1958Relator’s claim is that § 375.820 provides a method of service only in suits by and between the subscribers on the contracts exchanged by them (citing the Arkansas case of Vandover v. Lumber Underwriters, 197 Ark. 718 , 126 S.W.2d 105 ), and tha,t State Investment’s action “is not a suit arising out of policies within the meaning” of said section. 1958Relator’s claim is that § 375.820 provides a method of service only in suits by and between the subscribers on the contracts exchanged by them (citing the Arkansas case of Vandover v. Lumber Underwriters, 197 Ark. 718 , 126 S.W.2d 105 ), and tha,t State Investment’s action “is not a suit arising out of policies within the meaning” of said section.	1	1958–1958
State ex rel. Book v. Goodman neutral mo · 1953 1 sentence 1954Book v. Goodman, Mo.Sup., 263 S.W.2d 409 , a unanimous decision of this court en banc.	1	1954–1954
State Ex Rel. Hartley v. Gideon neutral · 1931 2 sentences 1953Hartly v. Gideon, 225 Mo.App. 459 , 40 S.W.2d 745 ; State ex rel. 1953Hartly v. Gideon, 225 Mo.App. 459 , 40 S.W.2d 745 ; State ex rel.	1	1953–1953
In Re Oppenstein green · 1921 2 sentences 1953Relator’s brief cites and relies on Ex parte Oppenstein, 289 Mo. 421 , 233 S.W. 440 ; State ex rel. 1953Relator’s brief cites and relies on Ex parte Oppenstein, 289 Mo. 421 , 233 S.W. 440 ; State ex rel.	1	1953–1953
State ex rel. Martin v. Wofford green mo · 1894 2 sentences 1952Martin v. Wofford, 121 Mo. 61 , 25 S.W. 851 , was not based on the proviso now under scrutiny, but, on the contrary, mandamus was issued to enforce compliance with the kindred 1881 act (§ 8256, RSMo 1889), which provided that “in eases of appeal and on motions for new trial, the transcripts of the evidence shall be furnished to defendant upon the order of the court without cost to said defendant.” (And, as previously noted, without compensation to the reporter.) While it is beside the point, it is, nevertheless, interesting to note that the innovation in preserving the trial record as introduc 1952Martin v. Wofford, 121 Mo. 61 , 25 S.W. 851 , was not based on the proviso now under scrutiny, but, on the contrary, mandamus was issued to enforce compliance with the kindred 1881 act (§ 8256, RSMo 1889), which provided that “in eases of appeal and on motions for new trial, the transcripts of the evidence shall be furnished to defendant upon the order of the court without cost to said defendant.” (And, as previously noted, without compensation to the reporter.) While it is beside the point, it is, nevertheless, interesting to note that the innovation in preserving the trial record as introduc	1	1952–1952
State Ex Rel. United States Bank v. Gehner green mo · 1928 2 sentences 1940Bank v. Gehner, 319 Mo. 1048 , 1051, 5 S.W.2d 40 ; State ex rel. 1940Bank v. Gehner, 319 Mo. 1048 , 1051, 5 S.W.2d 40 ; State ex rel.	1	1940–1940
State Ex Rel. Miller v. O'Malley green mo · 1938 2 sentences 1940Miller v. O'Malley, 342 Mo. 641 , 646, 117 S.W.2d 319 .] [5] Relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings admits all facts properly pleaded in the return. [State ex rel. 1940Miller v. O'Malley, 342 Mo. 641 , 646, 117 S.W.2d 319 .] [5] Relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings admits all facts properly pleaded in the return. [State ex rel.	1	1940–1940
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Justices of Bollinger County Court neutral mo · 1871 1 sentence 1872So in The State v. Bollinger County Court, 48 Mo. 475 , the relator had no claim upon the county, but only upon á certain fund in the custody of the County Court.	1	1872–1872

Where else courts name it

TX 110 (1911–2025) OH 60 (1881–2025) LA 29 (1979–2026) NY 19 (1897–2020) MO 17 (1872–2015) IL 6 (1886–2023) WA 6 (1912–1998) MN 5 (1953–2016) FL 3 (1939–1967) NE 3 (1942–2024) DE 3 (1949–2022) CA 2 (2022–2022) NM 2 (2018–2026) WI 2 (1906–1980) WV 2 (1978–1994) OR 2 (1979–2026) MT 2 (1903–1961) PA 2 (1938–1951) IN 2 (1869–1957)

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