113 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2025 13 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. Dudleygreen2 sentences2021We must determine “whether, on the face of the claim, plain error has, in fact, occurred.” Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 53 . 2011We must decide “whether, on the face of the claim, plain error has, in fact, occurred.” State v. Dudley, 51 S.W.3d 44, 53 (Mo.App.2001). | 13 | 20 |
State v. Baumrukgreen2 sentences2025See Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 . 2025See Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 . | 12 | 12 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2006In effect, an appellate court must determine whether, on the face of the claim, “plain error” has, in fact, occurred.’” Id. (quoting State v. Brown, 97 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Mo.App.2002)). 2006In effect, an appellate court must determine whether, on the face of the claim, “plain error” has, in fact, occurred.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Brown, 97 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Mo.App.2002)). | 7 | 9 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2002State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995). 2001State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Hawthornegreen2 sentences2011“Plain errors are those that are evident, obvious and clear.” State v. Hawthorne, 74 S.W.3d 826, 829 (Mo.App.2002). 2010“Plain errors are those that are evident, obvious and clear.” State v. Hawthorne, 74 S.W.3d 826, 829 (Mo.App.2002). | 3 | 3 |
State v. McGuiregreen2 sentences2015“The first step involves an .examination to determine whether the claim- for review facially establishes substantial grounds for believing 1 that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted, or -in other words, whether on the face of thé claim, plain error has, in fact, occurred.” State v. Smith, 370 S.W.3d 891, 896 (Mo.App.E.D. 2012), If plain error is found .on the face of the claim, we may exercise, our discretion to move to the second, step and determine whether the claimed error actually resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. 2015“The first step involves an examination to determine whether the claim for review facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted, or in other words, whether on the face of the claim, plain error has, in fact, occurred,” State v. Smith, 370 S.W.3d 891, 896 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). | 2 | 3 |
Bolden v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Bolden v. State, 423 S.W.3d 803, 812 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013). 2015Bolden vy, State, 423 S.W.3d 803, 812 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Whitakergreen2 sentences2021State v. Whitaker, 405 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Mo.App. 2015Whitaker, 405 S.W.3d at 559 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Riosgreen2 sentences2015State v. Rios, 314 S.W.3d 414, 422 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). 2014Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Finchergreen2 sentences2015“If we do not find plain error on the face of the claim, we should decline to exercise our discretion to review the claimed error under Rule 30.20.” Id. at 554 . 2015“If we do find plain error on the face of the claim, we have the discretion to proceed to the second step to consider whether a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if the error is left uncorrected.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Claygreen1 sentence2024See Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 . “[T]the trial court's obligation to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is conditioned on a party timely requesting the instruction.” State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 717 (Mo. banc 2017). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Isagreen1 sentence2022"The defendant bears the burden of showing that an alleged error has produced such a manifest injustice." State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 884 (Mo. banc 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Daniel D. Hartmangreen1 sentence2021Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 53 . 6 “Hearsay statements, or out-of-court statements used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, generally are inadmissible.” State v. Hartman, 488 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Mo. banc 2016). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mullinsgreen1 sentence2017If we find plain error on the face of the claim, we may proceed, at our discretion, to the second step and consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.” State v. Mullins, 140 S.W.3d 64, 68 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Avery v. Division of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2013If we do find plain error on the face of the claim, we have the discretion to proceed to the second step to consider whether a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if the error is left uncorrected.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 204 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (quoting State v. Fincher, 359 S.W.3d 549, 553-54 (Mo.App.W.D.2012)). 2013If we do find plain error on the face of the claim, we have the discretion to proceed to the second step to consider whether a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if the error is left uncorrected.” State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192, 204 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (quoting State v. Fincher, 359 S.W.3d 549, 553-54 (Mo.App.W.D.2012)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Withrowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Zimmermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pope v. Popegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shoultsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ballardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson Ex Rel. Wilson v. Simmonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sharpgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Inf Enterprise, Inc. v. Donnellongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Valentinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dowellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Terre Du Lac Property Owners' Ass'n v. Shrumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marriage of Brisco v. Briscogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hartley Realty Company v. Casadygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Boedges Ex Rel. Boedges v. Dingesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Duffy v. Rohangreen | 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. Lewis
green
2 sentences2011Lewis, 243 S.W.3d at 525 . 2011Id. | 5 | 2009–2011 |
State v. Scurlock
green
2 sentences2023See Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 ; Scurlock, 998 S.W.2d at 586 . 2023See Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 ; Scurlock, 998 S.W.2d at 586 . | 4 | 2000–2023 |
State v. Brink
green
2 sentences2010“If we find plain error on the face of the claim, we may proceed, at our discretion, to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.” Id. 2010“If we find plain error on the face of the claim, we may proceed, at our discretion, to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.” Id. | 4 | 2008–2010 |
State v. Smallwood
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 3 | 2009–2013 |
State v. DeWeese
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2008Id. | 3 | 2004–2011 |
State v. Hagan
green
2 sentences2006In effect, an appellate court must determine whether, on the face of the claim, “plain error” has, in fact, occurred.’” Id. (quoting State v. Brown, 97 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Mo.App.2002)). 2006Therefore, under the first step of the test for plain error, we hold that on the face of the claim no plain error, in fact, occurred. 4 Hagan, 113 S.W.3d at 267 . | 3 | 2004–2006 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2002“If plain error is found on the face of the claim, then the rule authorizes, as a matter of court discretion, a second step to determine whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.” Williams, 9 S.W.3d at 12 . 2001“If plain error is found on the face of the claim, then the rule authorizes, as a matter of court discretion, a second step to determine whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.” Williams, 9 S.W.3d at 12 . | 3 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Stallings
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. Doe
green
2 sentences2013Smith, 538 U.S. at 105-06 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 . 2006Smith, 538 U.S. 84 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 , 155 L.Ed.2d 164 . | 2 | 2006–2013 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2009"If evident, obvious, and clear error is found on the face of the claim, the appellate court has discretion to determine whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted therefrom." Id. 2009“If evident, obvious, and clear error is found on the face of the claim, the appellate court has discretion to determine whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted therefrom.” Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
green
2 sentences2008Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 (quoting Furnco Constr., 438 U.S. at 577 , 98 S.Ct. 2943 ) (emphasis added). 2008Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 (quoting Furnco Constr., 438 U.S. at 577 , 98 S.Ct. 2943 ) (emphasis added). | 2 | 1989–2008 |
State v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2022“If plain error is found on the face of the claim, then the rule authorizes, as a matter of court discretion, a second step to determine whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice." Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State of Missouri v. Deon A. Williams
green
1 sentence2018"Unless the error is obvious, evident, and clear from the face of the claim, the appellate court should exercise its discretion and decline to review the claim." State v. Williams , 502 S.W.3d 90 , 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re RSL
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2010Johnson, 284 S.W.3d at 587-89 ; see also Taylor, 134 S.W.3d at 30 . b. 2010Johnson, 284 S.W.3d at 587-89 ; see also Taylor, 134 S.W.3d at 30 . b. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Calhoun green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Bozarth green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Stanley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Shaffer green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Day Advertising Inc. v. DeVries & Associates, P.C. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Graves green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Hancock v. Secretary of State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Campbell green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Cohen v. Express Financial Services, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Bedwell v. Bedwell green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Hibler green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Sprous green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Pettis green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cornell v. Texaco, Inc. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Fowler v. Park Corp. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Townsend green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| United States v. Richard Nielsen green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Osborne v. Wells neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Tenny's Adminstrator v. Lasley's Administrators green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Stevens v. Stevens green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Elms Realty Co. v. Wood neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| In Re Estate of Howard v. Howe green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Meyers v. Drake green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Fowler v. Fowler neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.