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.
106 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 16 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C.green2 sentences2024“To reverse a jury verdict on the ground of instructional error, the party challenging the instruction must show that: (1) the instruction as submitted misled, misdirected, or confused the jury; and (2) prejudice resulted from the instruction.” Stevens v. Markirk Constr., Inc., 454 S.W.3d 875, 880 (Mo. banc 2015) (quoting Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81, 90-91 (Mo. banc 2010)). 2020We reverse only if the instructional error resulted in prejudice that “materially affects the merits of the action.” The party challenging the instruction bears the burden of showing the instruction “misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice . . . .” Id. (citing Fleshner v. Pepose, 304 S.W.3d 81, 90-91 (Mo. banc 2010)). | 6 | 11 |
Hervey v. Missouri Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2025“The party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.” Id. (quoting Hervey v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 379 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. banc 2012)). 2021“The party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.” Id. | 5 | 15 |
Cornell v. Texaco, Inc.green2 sentences1995Cornell v. Texaco, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Mo. banc 1986). 1993In fact, to reverse a jury verdict on the grounds of instructional error regarding a not-in-MAI instruction, “it must appear that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury; the burden to prove the error rests with the party challenging the instruction.” MFA, 817 S.W.2d at 663 (citing Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 ). | 3 | 6 |
Shereen Kader v. Board of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Universitygreen2 sentences2025“The party challenging the instruction must show that the 16 offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.” Id. 2023To obtain reversal based on instructional error, the tenants “have the burden of demonstrating ‘that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.’” Harned v. Spurlock, 658 S.W.3d 562 , 575 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Kader v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ., 565 S.W.3d 182, 186 (Mo. banc 2019)). | 3 | 4 |
Powderly v. South County Anesthesia Associates, Ltd.green2 sentences2019Powderly v. S. Co. Anesthesia Assocs., Ltd., 245 S.W.3d 267, 276 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). 2015“To reverse on grounds of instructional error, the party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled or confused the jury, and prejudice resulted.” Powderly v. S. County Anesthesia Assocs., Ltd., 245 S.W.3d 267, 276 (Mo.App.E.D. 2008) (citing Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Cas. | 2 | 3 |
Powell v. Norman Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2000Powell v. Norman Lines, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 191, 194 (Mo.App.1984). 1986Powell v. Norman Lines, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 191, 194 [1—3] (Mo.App.1984). | 2 | 2 |
Essex v. Getty Oil Co.green2 sentences1986Essex v. Getty Oil Co., 661 S.W.2d 544, 558 (Mo.App.1983). 1984“To reverse a jury verdict on ground of instruction error, it must appear that -the offending instruction misdirected, misled or confused the jury and the burden to prove the proposition rests with the party challenging the instruction.” Essex v. Getty Oil Co., 661 S.W.2d 544, 558 (Mo.App.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Bob Wood & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences1984Wilson v. Bob Hood & Associates, Inc., 633 S.W.2d 738, 751 (Mo.App.1981). 1983Wilson v. Bob Wood & Associates, Inc., 633 S.W.2d 738, 751 (Mo.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
Seidel v. Gordon A. Gundaker Real Estate Co.green2 sentences1999Id. 1998Id. | 1 | 4 |
Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 188 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Mo. banc 2006)). 2014Dhyne, 188 S.W.3d at 459 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Boldengreen2 sentences2025“In such cases, ‘[i]t is axiomatic that a defendant may not take advantage of self-invited error or error of his own making,’ and the defendant has waived all appellate review related to the inaccuracy of the instruction.” Id. (quoting State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 806 (Mo. 10 banc 2012)). 2013Id. at 806 . | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrookegreen1 sentence2025Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke, 151 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Mo. banc 2004) (internal quotation omitted) (noting the party challenging privilege must have “sufficient information to assess whether the claimed privilege is applicable”). | 1 | 1 |
Shawn Stevens v. Markirk Construction, Inc., and Kirk Jonesgreen1 sentence2024“To reverse a jury verdict on the ground of instructional error, the party challenging the instruction must show that: (1) the instruction as submitted misled, misdirected, or confused the jury; and (2) prejudice resulted from the instruction.” Stevens v. Markirk Constr., Inc., 454 S.W.3d 875, 880 (Mo. banc 2015) (quoting Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81, 90-91 (Mo. banc 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C.green1 sentence2023SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C., 494 S.W.3d 537, 553 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davisgreen1 sentence2020A party challenging a rule has the burden “‘to show that [it] bear[s] no reasonable relationship to the legislative objective.’” Id. at 603 (quoting Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davis, 488 S.W.2d 193, 197 (Mo. banc 1972)). | 1 | 1 |
Howes v. Howesgreen1 sentence2019See Huelskamp, 475 S.W.3d at 173, 175-76 (viewing challenged language in light of the whole instruction); see also SKMDV Holdings, 494 S.W.3d at 553 (the party challenging an instruction has the burden to prove it misdirected, misled, or confused the jury). | 1 | 1 |
| Sherry L. Huelskamp v. Patients First Health Care, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bailey v. Hawthorn Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bowolak v. Mercy East Communitiesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Syn, Inc. v. Beebegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schubert v. Schubertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sutherland v. Sutherlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martens v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoecker v. Hoeckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kearbey v. Wichita Southeast Kansasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wicklund v. Handoyogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jone v. Coleman Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wallace v. May ex rel. Archdiocese of St. Louisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wuerz v. Huffakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Choate v. Natviggreen | 1 | 1 |
| King v. Ryalsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Murphy v. City of Springfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,019 Mary Margaret Ward, Cross-Appellants v. Succession of Richard W. Freeman, Cross-Appelleesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pritchard-Keang Nam Corp. v. Jaworskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Standard Leasing Corp. v. Missouri Rock Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation
green
2 sentences2023“Accordingly, ‘the party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.’” Id. (citation omitted). 2017"Accordingly, the party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction." Id. (internal quotation omitted). | 5 | 2014–2023 |
Tanisha Ross-Paige v. Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department Steven A. Gori, Michael A. Deeba, Sr., Saint Louis Board of Police Commissioners, Richard H. Gray, Bettye Battle Turner, Thomas J. Irwin, and Francis G. Slay
green
2 sentences2025“The party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.” Id. (quoting Hervey v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 379 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. banc 2012)). 2022To obtain reversal based on instructional error, Defendants have the burden of demonstrating "that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction." Kader v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ., 565 S.W.3d 182, 186 (Mo. banc 2019) (emphasis added) (quoting Ross-Paige, 492 S.W.3d at 172 ). | 4 | 2019–2025 |
Jessica Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP
green
2 sentences2023Id. (citing Chavez, 450 S.W.3d at 294 ). “[I]f we find that by some theory the instructions are supportable, then their submission was proper.” Lowe v. Mercy Clinic E. 2017“Accordingly, the party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). | 4 | 2017–2023 |
State v. Richie
green
2 sentences2014“To reverse on grounds of instructional error, the party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled or confused the jury, and prejudice resulted.” Id. 2014“To reverse on grounds of instructional error, the party challenging the instruction must show that the offending instruction misdirected, misled or confused the jury, and prejudice resulted.” Id. | 4 | 2013–2014 |
Twin Chimneys Homeowners Ass'n v. J.E. Jones Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2007In determining the propriety of an instruction, “we view the evidence most favorably to the instruction, disregard contrary evidence, and reverse where the party challenging the instruction shows that the instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, and there is a substantial indication of prejudice.” Id. | 3 | 2007–2012 |
Moore Ex Rel. Moore v. Bi-State Development Agency
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2005Upon a claim of instructional error, we review the evidence “most favorably to the *152 instruction, disregarding] ' contrary evidence, and [we] reverse where the party challenging the instruction shows that the instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury.” Id. | 3 | 2005–2009 |
Hayes v. Price
green
1 sentence2025“The party challenging the instruction has the burden of showing the instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, thereby resulting in prejudice.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2025“In such cases, ‘[i]t is axiomatic that a defendant may not take advantage of self-invited error or error of his own making,’ and the defendant has waived all appellate review related to the inaccuracy of the instruction.” Id. (quoting State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 806 (Mo. 10 banc 2012)). 2025“However, an exception to the availability of plain error review of instructional error exists in cases where a flawed [defense-of-others] instruction was given, but the flawed instruction was offered by the party challenging the instruction on appeal.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Heather Rosales v. Benjamin Equestrian Center, LLC
green
1 sentence2023Id. 2 Denney’s argument on appeal focuses on Instruction 9, 3 which instructed the jury as follows: In your verdict you must assess a percentage of fault to the plaintiff whether or not defendant was partly at fault, if you believe: First, plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions due to his allergy, and Second, plaintiff was thereby negligent, and Third such negligence of plaintiff directly caused or directly contributed to cause any damage plaintiff may have sustained. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Katherine Harned v. Daniel V. Spurlock, D.O.
green
1 sentence2023To obtain reversal based on instructional error, the tenants “have the burden of demonstrating ‘that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.’” Harned v. Spurlock, 658 S.W.3d 562 , 575 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Kader v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ., 565 S.W.3d 182, 186 (Mo. banc 2019)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Eisele
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State ex rel. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. Waters
green
1 sentence2020A party challenging a rule has the burden “‘to show that [it] bear[s] no reasonable relationship to the legislative objective.’” Id. at 603 (quoting Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davis, 488 S.W.2d 193, 197 (Mo. banc 1972)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Edgerton v. Morrison
green
1 sentence2020We will only reverse a jury verdict on the basis of instructional error “if the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudice to the party challenging the instruction.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Alhalabi v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources
green
1 sentence2020We reverse based on an instructional error only if “the party challenging the instruction shows that the instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, and there is a substantial indication of prejudice.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| City of Harrisonville, Appellant-Respondent v. McCall Service Stations d/b/a Big Tank Oil, the Missouri Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hudson v. Carr green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Isa green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Klotz v. St. Anthony's Medical Center green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Gustafson v. Benda green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Bird v. Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors & Landscape Architects green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Pennell green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Rice v. Bol green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Wood v. Wood green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Nagaragadde v. Pandurangi green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Heslop v. Heslop green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| M.C. v. Yeargin green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Sooter v. Magic Lantern, Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Jafarian-Kerman v. Jafarian-Kerman green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| MFA INC. v. Dettler green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.