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.
16 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1962–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jad v. Fjdgreen1 sentence2011See J.A.D. v. F.J.D., 978 S.W.2d 336, 340 (Mo. banc 1998) (In discussing the validity of an antenuptial agreement, the court cited factors including the waiving spouse’s access to independent counsel and understanding of the agreement, disclosure of the assets and their values, disclosure of the spouse’s legal rights, and the relative equality of the bargaining positions between each spouse in terms of age, sophistication, education, employment and experience.). | 1 | 1 |
Harmon v. Stategreen1 sentence1981Compare Harmon v. State, 603 S.W.2d 85 [1] (Mo.App.1980); and see Plant v. State, 547 S.W.2d 835 [4] (Mo.App.1977), adding that “abstract statements of law preserve nothing for review”. | 1 | 1 |
Murchison v. Kirbygreen1 sentence1977See, e. g., In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 530 F.2d 83, 88 [3] (5th Cir. 1976); Murchison v. Kirby, 201 F.Supp. 122, 123 [1] (S.D.N.Y.1961); Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R Co., 57 F.Supp. 680, 684 [4] (E.D.Pa.1944). 4 Of course, there may be narrow exceptions to this general rule, such as when the conflict of interest is manifest and glaring, so that the court will be confronted with a plain duty to act. | 1 | 1 |
Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.green1 sentence1977See, e. g., In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 530 F.2d 83, 88 [3] (5th Cir. 1976); Murchison v. Kirby, 201 F.Supp. 122, 123 [1] (S.D.N.Y.1961); Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R Co., 57 F.Supp. 680, 684 [4] (E.D.Pa.1944). 4 Of course, there may be narrow exceptions to this general rule, such as when the conflict of interest is manifest and glaring, so that the court will be confronted with a plain duty to act. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Celanese Corporation and Fiber Industries, Inc. v. Leesona Corporation, Lex Tex Ltd., Inc.green1 sentence1977See, e. g., In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 530 F.2d 83, 88 [3] (5th Cir. 1976); Murchison v. Kirby, 201 F.Supp. 122, 123 [1] (S.D.N.Y.1961); Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R Co., 57 F.Supp. 680, 684 [4] (E.D.Pa.1944). 4 Of course, there may be narrow exceptions to this general rule, such as when the conflict of interest is manifest and glaring, so that the court will be confronted with a plain duty to act. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Allebachgreen2 sentences1962See the case of Kleinhammer v. Kleinhammer, Mo.App., 225 S.W.2d 377 , l. c. 378 [1], holding that even under a liberal interpretation of the new rules concerning appeals such an omission is fatal to the appeal, and quoting from the case of Walker v. Allebach, 354 Mo. 298 , 189 S.W.2d 282 , l. c. 283: “ * * * And a statement which omits the essential facts on which an appellant’s adversary relies cannot be deemed a substantial compliance with said rule. * ⅜ * ” (Now Mo.Sup.Ct. 1962See the case of Kleinhammer v. Kleinhammer, Mo.App., 225 S.W.2d 377 , l. c. 378 [1], holding that even under a liberal interpretation of the new rules concerning appeals such an omission is fatal to the appeal, and quoting from the case of Walker v. Allebach, 354 Mo. 298 , 189 S.W.2d 282 , l. c. 283: “ * * * And a statement which omits the essential facts on which an appellant’s adversary relies cannot be deemed a substantial compliance with said rule. * ⅜ * ” (Now Mo.Sup.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Kleinhammer v. Kleinhammergreen1 sentence1962See the case of Kleinhammer v. Kleinhammer, Mo.App., 225 S.W.2d 377 , l. c. 378 [1], holding that even under a liberal interpretation of the new rules concerning appeals such an omission is fatal to the appeal, and quoting from the case of Walker v. Allebach, 354 Mo. 298 , 189 S.W.2d 282 , l. c. 283: “ * * * And a statement which omits the essential facts on which an appellant’s adversary relies cannot be deemed a substantial compliance with said rule. * ⅜ * ” (Now Mo.Sup.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kleim v. Sansone
green
1 sentence2022The Court cited the principle that “[a] party on appeal generally ‘must stand or fall’ by the theory on which he tried and submitted his case in the court below.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hoopes
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 342 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
DeWitt v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2004One of the cases the Court cited for this principle was DeWitt In DeWitt , after the Court found that an insured with a limited ownership interest had an insurable interest in the property, the Court stated that it was “unnecessary to determine the extent of her interest in the property” because she was entitled to recover the policy limits under the valued policy statute. 667 S.W.2d at 706-07 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Garzee v. Sauro
green
1 sentence1999Garzee, 639 S.W.2d at 832 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Central Production Credit Ass'n v. Reed
green
1 sentence1991Central Production Credit Ass’n v. Reed, 805 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Curtis v. Lawley
green
2 sentences1991In Curtis v. Lawley, 140 Colo. 476 , 346 P.2d 579 (banc 1959), a trial court gave instructions involving intersecting public highways when, in fact, the highway upon which the deceased truck driver was operating was under construction. 1991In Curtis v. Lawley, 140 Colo. 476 , 346 P.2d 579 (banc 1959), a trial court gave instructions involving intersecting public highways when, in fact, the highway upon which the deceased truck driver was operating was under construction. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Joiner v. State
green
1 sentence1990State v. Wilson, 349 S.W.2d 934 (Mo.1961); cf. Joiner v. State, 621 S.W.2d 336 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence1990State v. Wilson, 349 S.W.2d 934 (Mo.1961); cf. Joiner v. State, 621 S.W.2d 336 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Grant
green
1 sentence1987State v. Grant, 702 S.W.2d 857 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Bursley
green
1 sentence1986State v. Johnson, supra. These prior inconsistent statements of the victim concerning the dates are clearly distinguishable from the totally contradictory in-trial testimonial statements of victims going to the heart of offenses in State v. Bursley, 548 S.W.2d 586 (Mo.App.1976), cited by the defendant. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1986State v. Johnson, supra. These prior inconsistent statements of the victim concerning the dates are clearly distinguishable from the totally contradictory in-trial testimonial statements of victims going to the heart of offenses in State v. Bursley, 548 S.W.2d 586 (Mo.App.1976), cited by the defendant. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Presley
green
1 sentence1986State v. Presley, supra. See also State v. Chamberlain, 648 S.W.2d 238 (Mo.App. 1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Cole
green
1 sentence1986State v. Bulen, supra; State v. Cole, 581 S.W.2d 875 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Chamberlain
green
1 sentence1986State v. Presley, supra. See also State v. Chamberlain, 648 S.W.2d 238 (Mo.App. 1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Salkil
green
2 sentences1986State v. Salkil, supra. Further, the cited rule has been held not to be applicable where the testimony of a prose-cutrix was contradictory concerning who of four different men committed the offense and who helped her escape. 1986State v. Salkil, supra. Further, the cited rule has been held not to be applicable where the testimony of a prose-cutrix was contradictory concerning who of four different men committed the offense and who helped her escape. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Nicholson v. State
green
1 sentence1983Id. at 111 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Plant v. State
green
1 sentence1981Compare Harmon v. State, 603 S.W.2d 85 [1] (Mo.App.1980); and see Plant v. State, 547 S.W.2d 835 [4] (Mo.App.1977), adding that “abstract statements of law preserve nothing for review”. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Copenhaver v. Copenhaver
green
1 sentence1970Copenhaver v. Copenhaver, Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 612 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Weaver v. Jordan
green
1 sentence1965Preliminarily defendants urge that this case should be ruled under general principles of equity which is “reluctant to permit a wrong to be suffered without remedy” and which “will not sanction an unconscionable result merely because it may have been brought about by means which simulate legality”, citing Weaver v. Jordan, Mo.App., 362 S.W.2d 66 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.