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.
17 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2017 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. Ramseygreen2 sentences2017However, hearsay in the form of prior consistent statements is admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness whose credibility has been attacked by an express or implied claim of recent fabrication of trial testimony, State v. Christeson, 50 S.W.3d 251, 267 (Mo. banc 2001) (citing State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 329 (Mo. banc 1993)). 2011“Prior consistent statements are admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness whose credibility has been attacked by an express or implied claim of recent fabrication of trial testimony.” State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 329 (Mo. banc 1993). “ ‘Statements consistent with trial testimony given before the corrupting influence to falsify occurred are relevant to rebut a claim of contrivance.’ ” State v. Robinson, 194 S.W.3d 379, 381 (Mo.App. | 8 | 8 |
State v. Christesongreen1 sentence2017However, hearsay in the form of prior consistent statements is admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness whose credibility has been attacked by an express or implied claim of recent fabrication of trial testimony, State v. Christeson, 50 S.W.3d 251, 267 (Mo. banc 2001) (citing State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 329 (Mo. banc 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2011“Prior consistent statements are admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness whose credibility has been attacked by an express or implied claim of recent fabrication of trial testimony.” State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 329 (Mo. banc 1993). “ ‘Statements consistent with trial testimony given before the corrupting influence to falsify occurred are relevant to rebut a claim of contrivance.’ ” State v. Robinson, 194 S.W.3d 379, 381 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2010“Prior consistent statements are admissible to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been attacked by an express or implied claim of fabricated trial testimony.” State v. Campbell, 254 S.W.3d 203, 205 (Mo.App.2008) (citing State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 329 (Mo. banc 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Brennan Ex Rel. Brennan v. Curators of the University of Missourigreen1 sentence2003See Brennan By and Through Brennan v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 942 S.W.2d 432, 434, 436 (Mo.App.1997), for the proposition that sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense and that claimant must plead an exception or waiver. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richardsongreen1 sentence1993State v. Richardson, 349 Mo. 1108 , 163 S.W.2d 956, 960 (1942), and State v. Henderson, 666 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 636, 638 (Mo. App.1989). | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences2008Smith, 686 S.W.2d at 547 . 1989Id. | 2 | 1989–2008 |
State v. Henderson
green
1 sentence1993State v. Richardson, 349 Mo. 1108 , 163 S.W.2d 956, 960 (1942), and State v. Henderson, 666 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Morgan v. Duncan
green
1 sentence1988The court said, at p. 283, 361 Mo. 683 : “[A]n injury to an employee living, boarding, or lodging on the employer’s premises, or at the place where the work is being done, pursuant to an express or implied requirement of the contract of hiring, if reasonably attributable or incidental to the nature of employment, or to the conditions under which he lives in the performance of his duties, is to be regarded as having arisen out of and in the course of such employment. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
red
2 sentences1985In that respect, it has been said that a prisoner’s express waiver of the agreement must meet the test of a knowing and voluntary waiver of a constitutional right as defined in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); State ex rel. 1985In that respect, it has been said that a prisoner’s express waiver of the agreement must meet the test of a knowing and voluntary waiver of a constitutional right as defined in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); State ex rel. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Redlands Orange Growers' Ass'n v. Gorman
green
2 sentences1916Even an acceptance of the binder after the stipulated time and after-plaintiff’s damages had accrued would not, in the absence of an express or implied waiver or some fact raising an estoppel, preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit. [Redlands Orange Growers’ Ass’n. v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203 , 61 S. W. 820 ; Wall v. Ice & Cold Storage Co., 112 Mo. App. 659, 664 , 87 S. W. 574 ; Murrman v. Wissler, 116 Mo. App. 397 , 92 S. W. 355 .] If the acceptance of the binder under such facts would not preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit, certainly his expressing a willingness to do so would n 1916Even an acceptance of the binder after the stipulated time and after-plaintiff’s damages had accrued would not, in the absence of an express or implied waiver or some fact raising an estoppel, preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit. [Redlands Orange Growers’ Ass’n. v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203 , 61 S. W. 820 ; Wall v. Ice & Cold Storage Co., 112 Mo. App. 659, 664 , 87 S. W. 574 ; Murrman v. Wissler, 116 Mo. App. 397 , 92 S. W. 355 .] If the acceptance of the binder under such facts would not preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit, certainly his expressing a willingness to do so would n | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Murmann v. Wissler
neutral
2 sentences1916Even an acceptance of the binder after the stipulated time and after-plaintiff’s damages had accrued would not, in the absence of an express or implied waiver or some fact raising an estoppel, preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit. [Redlands Orange Growers’ Ass’n. v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203 , 61 S. W. 820 ; Wall v. Ice & Cold Storage Co., 112 Mo. App. 659, 664 , 87 S. W. 574 ; Murrman v. Wissler, 116 Mo. App. 397 , 92 S. W. 355 .] If the acceptance of the binder under such facts would not preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit, certainly his expressing a willingness to do so would n 1916Even an acceptance of the binder after the stipulated time and after-plaintiff’s damages had accrued would not, in the absence of an express or implied waiver or some fact raising an estoppel, preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit. [Redlands Orange Growers’ Ass’n. v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203 , 61 S. W. 820 ; Wall v. Ice & Cold Storage Co., 112 Mo. App. 659, 664 , 87 S. W. 574 ; Murrman v. Wissler, 116 Mo. App. 397 , 92 S. W. 355 .] If the acceptance of the binder under such facts would not preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit, certainly his expressing a willingness to do so would n | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Wall v. St. Joseph Artesian Ice & Cold Storage Co.
green
2 sentences1916Even an acceptance of the binder after the stipulated time and after-plaintiff’s damages had accrued would not, in the absence of an express or implied waiver or some fact raising an estoppel, preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit. [Redlands Orange Growers’ Ass’n. v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203 , 61 S. W. 820 ; Wall v. Ice & Cold Storage Co., 112 Mo. App. 659, 664 , 87 S. W. 574 ; Murrman v. Wissler, 116 Mo. App. 397 , 92 S. W. 355 .] If the acceptance of the binder under such facts would not preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit, certainly his expressing a willingness to do so would n 1916Even an acceptance of the binder after the stipulated time and after-plaintiff’s damages had accrued would not, in the absence of an express or implied waiver or some fact raising an estoppel, preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit. [Redlands Orange Growers’ Ass’n. v. Gorman, 161 Mo. 203 , 61 S. W. 820 ; Wall v. Ice & Cold Storage Co., 112 Mo. App. 659, 664 , 87 S. W. 574 ; Murrman v. Wissler, 116 Mo. App. 397 , 92 S. W. 355 .] If the acceptance of the binder under such facts would not preclude plaintiff from maintaining this suit, certainly his expressing a willingness to do so would n | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Ballard v. State
neutral
1 sentence1906Proc., sec. 869a; Ballard v. State, 19 Neb. 609 .] Our statute was evidently enacted to cure this defect in the common law. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.