16 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2025 2 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. Hayesgreen2 sentences1987(Emphasis added.) We concluded in Hayes that the oral instruction given "could have had a prejudicial effect on [the] appellant's right to a fair trial." Id. 1987(Emphasis added.) We concluded in Hayes that the oral instruction given “could have had a prejudicial effect on [the] appellant’s right to a fair trial.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2010Compare Burns, 808 S.W.2d at 3 (factors suggesting a verdict may have been coerced included: inconsistent verdicts for the first and second count, the possibly coerced verdict being delivered quickly after the challenged instruction, the oral instruction contained a misstatement of fact and law, and the use of a non-MAI instruction). 1997Id. at 3 . | 1 | 2 |
Renee v. Hannibal Regional Hospitalgreen1 sentence2025Second, it is well-settled that “failure to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 51.05 is not fatal to an application for change of judge where the opponent had an opportunity to contest the application.” Joshi v. Ries, 330 S.W.3d 512 , 515 n.9 (Mo. App. 2010); see Couch, 144 S.W.3d at 898 ; Atteberry v. Hannibal Regional Hosp., 926 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Mo. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoppegreen1 sentence2025Second, it is well-settled that “failure to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 51.05 is not fatal to an application for change of judge where the opponent had an opportunity to contest the application.” Joshi v. Ries, 330 S.W.3d 512 , 515 n.9 (Mo. App. 2010); see Couch, 144 S.W.3d at 898 ; Atteberry v. Hannibal Regional Hosp., 926 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Mo. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Riehle v. Broadway Motors, Inc.green1 sentence1996Richie v. Broadway Motors, Inc., 350 S.W.2d 89, 94 (Mo.App.1961). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Broaduxgreen2 sentences1991The cautionary language “ ‘is the crux of the instruction’ and is consistent with the basic duty of a juror and the fundamental concept of a fair trial.” State v. Broadux, 618 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Mo. banc 1981) (quoting State v. Hayes, 563 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo. banc 1978)). 1991The cautionary language "`is the crux of the instruction' and is consistent with the basic duty of a juror and the fundamental concept of a fair trial." State v. Broadux, 618 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Mo. banc 1981) (quoting State v. Hayes, 563 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo. banc 1978)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Montgomerygreen1 sentence1984See State v. Montgomery, 590 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Speedygreen1 sentence1980State v. Speedy, supra, 256 [9-13]. | 1 | 1 |
Sherman v. AAA Credit Service Corporationgreen1 sentence1978In Sherman v. AAA Credit Service Corporation, 514 S.W.2d 642, 643 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1974) the court held an oral hearing on a motion for summary judgment was not required when the court acted under Rule 55.30. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joshi v. Ries
green
1 sentence2025Second, it is well-settled that “failure to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 51.05 is not fatal to an application for change of judge where the opponent had an opportunity to contest the application.” Joshi v. Ries, 330 S.W.3d 512 , 515 n.9 (Mo. App. 2010); see Couch, 144 S.W.3d at 898 ; Atteberry v. Hannibal Regional Hosp., 926 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Mo. App. 1996). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2024This record does not reflect an evident, obvious, or clear error by the trial court and therefore we decline to review this point for plain error. 1 1 This Court follows State v. Weaver, 178 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) in this regard where the court held that an oral waiver of jury sentencing, while inconsistent with section 557.036.4(1)’s requirement that it be in writing, does not amount to manifest injustice “when [the defendant] requested court sentencing and is merely unhappy with the result.” Id. at 548 . 2024This record does not reflect an evident, obvious, or clear error by the trial court and therefore we decline to review this point for plain error. 1 1 This Court follows State v. Weaver, 178 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) in this regard where the court held that an oral waiver of jury sentencing, while inconsistent with section 557.036.4(1)’s requirement that it be in writing, does not amount to manifest injustice “when [the defendant] requested court sentencing and is merely unhappy with the result.” Id. at 548 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital
green
1 sentence2012As previously mentioned, “[t]he ‘but for’ causation test provides that ‘the defendant’s conduct is a cause’ of the event if the event would not have occurred ‘but for’ that conduct.” Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 860 (quoting Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 41 at 266 (5th ed.1984)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Groves
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
City of Columbia v. Hardin
green
1 sentence1999This is made obvious, not only by her repeated assertions in her brief in Point I that the language of the rule was vague as written because there were no standards as to “whether and when” an oral hearing would be conducted, but by her assertion that this alleged vagueness allowed “for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the Rule.” See Hardin, 963 S.W.2d at 10 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Steward
green
1 sentence1988Defendant cites the cases of State v. Steward, 734 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. banc 1987) and State v. Hayes, 563 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1978), in support of his proposition. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Jordan
green
1 sentence1977The court found this was not an instruction within the meaning of the rule. 506 S.W.2d at 78 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State ex rel. Howard County v. Burckhartt
neutral
1 sentence1933Howard County v. Burckhartt et al., 83 Mo. 430, 433 .] Tt is, therefore, unnecessary for us to determine whether the trial court’s comments explaining why. plaintiff’s requested Instruction P-3 was modified and given in its modified form amounted to an oral instruction to the jury, and appellant’s claim that these comments constituted reversible error must be overruled. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.