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 2 courts 1878–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Howell, 441 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Mo. App. 2014) (“prosecutor is given even more latitude when responding to issues raised in the defendant’s closing argument”); Hall, 319 S.W.3d at 523-24 (when reviewing complained-of comments made in rebuttal, the trial court may consider whether the State’s comments were invited and the State may go further “in answering the argument of the defendant than would be normally allowed [and] has considerable leeway to make retaliatory arguments at closing … even if comment would be improper”). | 1 | 1 |
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. OSCAR L. HOWELLgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Howell, 441 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Mo. App. 2014) (“prosecutor is given even more latitude when responding to issues raised in the defendant’s closing argument”); Hall, 319 S.W.3d at 523-24 (when reviewing complained-of comments made in rebuttal, the trial court may consider whether the State’s comments were invited and the State may go further “in answering the argument of the defendant than would be normally allowed [and] has considerable leeway to make retaliatory arguments at closing … even if comment would be improper”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zeitvogelgreen2 sentences1987V Defendant also challenges the submission of both Instruction No. 12 and Instruction No. 13 on the ground that some of the prior offenses listed as nonstatutory aggravating circumstances in Instruction No. 13 were duplicative of those submitted in Instruction No. 12 as defendant's prior *673 serious assaultive convictions. [3] This claim may be succinctly answered by reference to State v. Zeitvogel, 707 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Mo. banc 1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 243 , 93 L.Ed.2d 168 (1986) in which we rejected an identical contention. 1987V Defendant also challenges the submission of both Instruction No. 12 and Instruction No. 13 on the ground that some of the prior offenses listed as nonstatutory aggravating circumstances in Instruction No. 13 were duplicative of those submitted in Instruction No. 12 as defendant’s prior serious assaultive convictions. 3 This claim may be succinctly answered by reference to State v. Zeitvogel, 707 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Mo. banc 1986), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 243 , 93 L.Ed.2d 168 (1986) in which we rejected an identical contention. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bradleygreen1 sentence1975State v. Burnett, 365 Mo. 1060 , 293 S.W.2d 335, 343 (1956); State v. Bradley, 234 S.W.2d 556, 563 (Mo.1950). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnettgreen2 sentences1975State v. Burnett, 365 Mo. 1060 , 293 S.W.2d 335, 343 (1956); State v. Bradley, 234 S.W.2d 556, 563 (Mo.1950). 1975State v. Burnett, 365 Mo. 1060 , 293 S.W.2d 335, 343 (1956); State v. Bradley, 234 S.W.2d 556, 563 (Mo.1950). | 1 | 1 |
Layton v. Palmergreen1 sentence1970Layton v. Palmer, Mo., 309 S.W.2d 561, 567 [10,11]; Walquist v. Kansas City Rys. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinegreen2 sentences1938They were of the same nature as questions about whether a witness has been charged with a crime or arrested (without a conviction) for an offense; and it is well settled that a witness cannot be impeached in that manner. [Wendling v. Bowden, supra, 252 Mo. l. c. 697, 161 S. W. l. c. 789; State v. Pine, 332 Mo. 314, 320, 321 , 57 S. W. (2d) 1087, 1089, 1090 (6).] In the cross-examination of the State’s witness Widmer, deputy sheriff, referring to the poultry house of Yanderbeck at Huntsville, this question was asked, and objection and ruling made: “Q. 1938They were of the same nature as questions about whether a witness has been charged with a crime or arrested (without a conviction) for an offense; and it is well settled that a witness cannot be impeached in that manner. [Wendling v. Bowden, supra, 252 Mo. l. c. 697, 161 S. W. l. c. 789; State v. Pine, 332 Mo. 314, 320, 321 , 57 S. W. (2d) 1087, 1089, 1090 (6).] In the cross-examination of the State’s witness Widmer, deputy sheriff, referring to the poultry house of Yanderbeck at Huntsville, this question was asked, and objection and ruling made: “Q. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Herr
green
1 sentence2013Point II is denied. 4 Husband contends in his fourth point that the court erred in its calculation of the farm under the source of funds formula, as stated in In re Marriage of Herr, 705 S.W.2d 619 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Ivory
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 222 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Michelson v. United States
green
2 sentences1987V Defendant also challenges the submission of both Instruction No. 12 and Instruction No. 13 on the ground that some of the prior offenses listed as nonstatutory aggravating circumstances in Instruction No. 13 were duplicative of those submitted in Instruction No. 12 as defendant's prior *673 serious assaultive convictions. [3] This claim may be succinctly answered by reference to State v. Zeitvogel, 707 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Mo. banc 1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 243 , 93 L.Ed.2d 168 (1986) in which we rejected an identical contention. 1987V Defendant also challenges the submission of both Instruction No. 12 and Instruction No. 13 on the ground that some of the prior offenses listed as nonstatutory aggravating circumstances in Instruction No. 13 were duplicative of those submitted in Instruction No. 12 as defendant’s prior serious assaultive convictions. 3 This claim may be succinctly answered by reference to State v. Zeitvogel, 707 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Mo. banc 1986), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 243 , 93 L.Ed.2d 168 (1986) in which we rejected an identical contention. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Dae v. City of St. Louis
green
1 sentence1980Louis, supra; Nickols v. North Kansas City, supra. The Court did not commit error in dismissing plaintiffs’ petition as to Chapter 626 for its failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1974Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 1974Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Christup
neutral
2 sentences1950We hold that the court did not commit error in receiving appellant’s statement in evidence. [State v. Christup, 337 Mo. 776 , 85 S. W. (2d) 1024 ; State v. Pillow, (Mo.) 169 S. W. (2d) 414 .] The metal taken by appellant and his accomplice consisted of three small truck loads, two taken one night and one the next night. 1950We hold that the court did not commit error in receiving appellant’s statement in evidence. [State v. Christup, 337 Mo. 776 , 85 S. W. (2d) 1024 ; State v. Pillow, (Mo.) 169 S. W. (2d) 414 .] The metal taken by appellant and his accomplice consisted of three small truck loads, two taken one night and one the next night. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Townsend v. Schaden
neutral
2 sentences1934We, therefore, hold that "the court did not commit error in refusing to direct a verdict for plaintiff. [Cramer v. May, 223 Mo. App. 57 , 8 S. W. (2d) 110, 113 ; Townsend v. Schaden, 275 Mo. 227, 242 , 204 S. W. 1076 ; Reynolds v. Hansom (Mo. App.), 191 S. W. 1030 .] Plaintiff complains of two instructions given on behalf of defendants. 1934We, therefore, hold that "the court did not commit error in refusing to direct a verdict for plaintiff. [Cramer v. May, 223 Mo. App. 57 , 8 S. W. (2d) 110, 113 ; Townsend v. Schaden, 275 Mo. 227, 242 , 204 S. W. 1076 ; Reynolds v. Hansom (Mo. App.), 191 S. W. 1030 .] Plaintiff complains of two instructions given on behalf of defendants. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Simpson v. Wells
green
1 sentence1934There was ample evidence of the causal connection between the accidental injuries received by deceased and his death without the certificate, and neither the verdict of the jury nor the judgment of the court rendered thereon is made to depend upon it. [Simpson v. Wells, 292 Mo. 301 , l.c. 323.] From the conclusions announced, it follows that the court did not commit error in refusing defendant's requested Instruction B. 3. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Cremer v. May
green
2 sentences1934We, therefore, hold that "the court did not commit error in refusing to direct a verdict for plaintiff. [Cramer v. May, 223 Mo. App. 57 , 8 S. W. (2d) 110, 113 ; Townsend v. Schaden, 275 Mo. 227, 242 , 204 S. W. 1076 ; Reynolds v. Hansom (Mo. App.), 191 S. W. 1030 .] Plaintiff complains of two instructions given on behalf of defendants. 1934We, therefore, hold that "the court did not commit error in refusing to direct a verdict for plaintiff. [Cramer v. May, 223 Mo. App. 57 , 8 S. W. (2d) 110, 113 ; Townsend v. Schaden, 275 Mo. 227, 242 , 204 S. W. 1076 ; Reynolds v. Hansom (Mo. App.), 191 S. W. 1030 .] Plaintiff complains of two instructions given on behalf of defendants. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
State v. Howard
neutral
1 sentence1930Having given instructions covering the same subject-matter, the court did not commit error in refusing the defendant's instructions 7, 14 and 17. [State v. Howard (Mo. Sup.), 23 S.W.2d 16 .] This disposes of all assignments of error which are "set forth in detail and with particularity" in the motion for a new trial. [See. 4079, Laws 1925, p. 198.] The information and the verdict are sufficient in form and substance, and the evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Sharp v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1906Co., 114 Mo. l. c. 100, 20 S. W. 93 , and cases cited), and we think the court did not commit error in refusing the peremptory instruction. 2. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Union Savings Ass'n v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence1889Union Savings Association v. Edwards, 47 Mo. 445 . | 1 | 1889–1889 |
Keithley v. May
neutral
1 sentence1878In Keithley v. May, 29 Mo. 220 ; Browning v. Chrisman, 30 Mo. 353 , and Adderton v. Collier, 32 Mo. 507 , there were especial reasons, apparent of record, why the plaintiff should not have been allowed to dismiss as to one of the parties defendant. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Browning v. Chrisman
neutral
1 sentence1878In Keithley v. May, 29 Mo. 220 ; Browning v. Chrisman, 30 Mo. 353 , and Adderton v. Collier, 32 Mo. 507 , there were especial reasons, apparent of record, why the plaintiff should not have been allowed to dismiss as to one of the parties defendant. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Adderton v. Collier
neutral
1 sentence1878In Keithley v. May, 29 Mo. 220 ; Browning v. Chrisman, 30 Mo. 353 , and Adderton v. Collier, 32 Mo. 507 , there were especial reasons, apparent of record, why the plaintiff should not have been allowed to dismiss as to one of the parties defendant. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.