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 2002–2023 6 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. Thomasgreen2 sentences2023The State argues Appellant’s “mitigating” evidence focuses on the sixth factor (assessing sophistication, maturity, and living environment), but courts emphasize the first three factors and “the serious nature of the crime is the dominant criterion among the ten factors.” Interest of T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d 510 , 524 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021), reh'g and/or transfer denied (Dec. 6, 2021), transfer denied (May 17, 2022) (quoting State v. Thomas, 70 S.W.3d 496, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002)). 2023However, the first factor is a “dominant criterion among the ten factors.” Id. (quoting State v. Thomas, 70 S.W.3d 496, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). | 6 | 6 |
Linton v. Lintongreen2 sentences2011Once the trial court makes these findings, section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute and “ ‘balance the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance with the other spouse’s ability to pay.’” Linton v. Linton, 117 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Mo.App.2003) (quoting Myers v. Myers, 47 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Mo.App.2001)). 2010Once the trial court makes these findings, section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute and “ ‘balance the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance with the other spouse’s ability to pay.’ ” Linton v. Linton, 117 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Mo.App.2003) (quoting Myers v. Myers, 47 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Mo.App.2001)). | 5 | 5 |
Myers v. Myersgreen2 sentences2011Once the trial court makes these findings, section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute and “ ‘balance the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance with the other spouse’s ability to pay.’” Linton v. Linton, 117 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Mo.App.2003) (quoting Myers v. Myers, 47 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Mo.App.2001)). 2010Once the trial court makes these findings, section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute and “ ‘balance the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance with the other spouse’s ability to pay.’ ” Linton v. Linton, 117 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Mo.App.2003) (quoting Myers v. Myers, 47 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Mo.App.2001)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Seidelgreen2 sentences2021Thomas, 70 S.W.3d at 504 (“Notably, the serious nature of the crime is the dominant criterion among the ten factors.”) (citing State v. Seidel, 764 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989)). 2002See State v. Seidel, 764 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Oregon v. Icegreen2 sentences2011See Ice, 555 U.S. at ___ , 129 S.Ct. at 721 (Scalia, J. dissenting). 2011See Ice, 555 U.S. at ___ , 129 S.Ct. at 721 (Scalia, J. dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Fuldnergreen1 sentence2004Once these findings are made, Section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute. 7 Once both steps have been satisfied, the statute provides that maintenance should be awarded “in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just.” In re Fuldner, 41 S.W.3d 581, 587 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence2023Even if Appellant’s counsel introduced evidence of a sympathetic background, Appellant has not shown his counsel was ineffective under Strickland because he has not demonstrated “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Anderson, 66 S.W.3d at 775 (quoting Simmons, 955 S.W.2d at 746 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2023Even if Appellant’s counsel introduced evidence of a sympathetic background, Appellant has not shown his counsel was ineffective under Strickland because he has not demonstrated “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Anderson, 66 S.W.3d at 775 (quoting Simmons, 955 S.W.2d at 746 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Shannon
green
1 sentence2018Shannon , 179 S.W.3d at 926 (citing Section 452.335.2). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2011He asserts that because the juvenile division considered the ten factors set out in § 211.071.6 in determining whether to certify his case, then, these ten factors must be determined by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to Apprendi, 2 In Apprendi , the United States Supreme Court held that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . 2011He asserts that because the juvenile division considered the ten factors set out in § 211.071.6 in determining whether to certify his case, then, these ten factors must be determined by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to Apprendi, 2 In Apprendi , the United States Supreme Court held that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Elrod v. Elrod
green
1 sentence2009“Once these findings are made, section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute and ‘balance the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance with the other spouse’s ability to pay.’ ” Elrod, 144 S.W.3d at 380 (quoting Linton v. Linton, 117 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Mo.App.2003)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Tarneja v. Tarneja
green
1 sentence2006If so determined, the trial court moves to the second step, which in “section 452.335.2 requires that the trial court, in determining the amount and duration of its maintenance award, consider the ten factors enumerated in the statute 10 and balance the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance with the other spouse’s ability to pay.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.