15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Bay State Abrasivesgreen2 sentences2012We acknowledge that in determining the adequacy of a warning, a court must consider “the placement of the warning, its language and how it may or may not impress the average user.” Brown v. Bay State Abrasives, 821 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Mo.App.1991). 2012“In evaluating these factors, the dangerous nature of the product, the form in which it is used, the burden to be imposed by requiring warnings and the likelihood that the particular warning will be adequately communicated to those who will foreseeably use the product must also be considered.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp.green2 sentences2011In general, the adequacy of the warning is a question for the jury”); Coleman v. Chesebro-Whitman Co., 262 A.D.2d 265 , 690 N.Y.S.2d 729, 729 (1999) (giving no facts but saying that plaintiff needed to allege what labels on ladder would have warned about and how the lack of the warning was a proximate cause of the injury); Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F.Supp. 933, 947-48 (D.Kan.1994) (plaintiff failed to make case when experts testified that the colorful warning and detailed language plaintiff said had to be placed on tire itself could not feasibly be placed there). . 2011In general, the adequacy of the warning is a question for the jury"); Coleman v. Chesebro-Whitman Co., 262 A.D.2d 265 , 690 N.Y.S.2d 729, 729 (1999) (giving no facts but saying that plaintiff needed to allege what labels on ladder would have warned about and how the lack of the warning was a proximate cause of the injury); Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F.Supp. 933, 947-48 (D.Kan. 1994) (plaintiff failed to make case when experts testified that the colorful warning and detailed language plaintiff said had to be placed on tire itself could not feasibly be placed there). [5] In Missouri, | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Chesebro-Whitman Co.green2 sentences2011In general, the adequacy of the warning is a question for the jury"); Coleman v. Chesebro-Whitman Co., 262 A.D.2d 265 , 690 N.Y.S.2d 729, 729 (1999) (giving no facts but saying that plaintiff needed to allege what labels on ladder would have warned about and how the lack of the warning was a proximate cause of the injury); Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F.Supp. 933, 947-48 (D.Kan. 1994) (plaintiff failed to make case when experts testified that the colorful warning and detailed language plaintiff said had to be placed on tire itself could not feasibly be placed there). [5] In Missouri, 2011In general, the adequacy of the warning is a question for the jury"); Coleman v. Chesebro-Whitman Co., 262 A.D.2d 265 , 690 N.Y.S.2d 729, 729 (1999) (giving no facts but saying that plaintiff needed to allege what labels on ladder would have warned about and how the lack of the warning was a proximate cause of the injury); Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F.Supp. 933, 947-48 (D.Kan. 1994) (plaintiff failed to make case when experts testified that the colorful warning and detailed language plaintiff said had to be placed on tire itself could not feasibly be placed there). [5] In Missouri, | 1 | 1 |
Yokley v. Wiangreen2 sentences2004Additionally, “an adequacy analysis in Missouri requires a determination of what the property would bring in a fair sheriffs sale.” Yokley v. Wian, 877 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Mo.App.1994). “ ‘Market value may be considered in determining the adequacy of the sale price but it is not the measure of adequacy. 2004The test of adequacy in a judicial sale is the price received in comparison with what the property would bring in a fair sheriffs sale.’ ” Id. (quoting Koester, 543 S.W.2d at 55 ). | 1 | 1 |
Krider v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Krider v. State, 44 S.W.3d 850, 856 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Tennis v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence1991Tennis v. General Motors Corp., 625 S.W.2d 218, 226 (Mo.App., S.D.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Rosebrock v. General Electric Co.green2 sentences1958That our conclusion that the necessity for and adequacy of the warning in this case should be decided by a jury would be the view of the New York courts is attested by Pease v. Sinclair Refining Co., supra, 104 F.2d 186 [3]; Henry v. Crook, 202 App.Div. 19 , 195 N.Y.S. 642 ; Rosebrock v. General Electric Co., 236 N.Y. 227 , 140 N.E. 571, 574 [2-4]; Moss v. Fred Perlberg, Inc., Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 922 . 1958That our conclusion that the necessity for and adequacy of the warning in this case should be decided by a jury would be the view of the New York courts is attested by Pease v. Sinclair Refining Co., supra, 104 F.2d 186 [3]; Henry v. Crook, 202 App.Div. 19 , 195 N.Y.S. 642 ; Rosebrock v. General Electric Co., 236 N.Y. 227 , 140 N.E. 571, 574 [2-4]; Moss v. Fred Perlberg, Inc., Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 922 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dale v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2015“Because class actions determine the rights of absent members, due process requires that absent class members be fairly and adequately represented.” - Dale, 204 S.W.3d at 172 . “[The adequacy] prerequisite applies both to the *421 named class representatives and to class counsel.” Vandyne v. Allied Mortg. 2009Dale, 204 S.W.3d at 173 . | 2 | 2009–2015 |
State of Missouri v. Tawanda Kunonga
green
2 sentences2019Looking first at the adequacy of the waiver of counsel hearing, we note that there is “no specific litany required for a Faretta hearing.” Kunonga, 490 S.W.3d at 763 . 2019Instead, “[w]hether a Faretta hearing establishes that a waiver of counsel is knowingly and intelligently made depends on ‘the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.’” Id. at 763-64 (quoting Hunter, 840 S.W.2d at 858 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hunter
green
1 sentence2019Instead, “[w]hether a Faretta hearing establishes that a waiver of counsel is knowingly and intelligently made depends on ‘the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.’” Id. at 763-64 (quoting Hunter, 840 S.W.2d at 858 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp.
green
1 sentence2017“Generally, the adequacy of a warning is a fact- question for the jury.” Id. at 279 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Balder v. Haley
green
1 sentence2016Balder, 399 N.W.2d at 81 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp.
green
1 sentence2011Tune, 883 S.W.2d at 13 . [6] Moreover, this Court's holding will not lead to a requirement that Ford must provide detailed warnings about how each part of the car will behave for persons of all different weights, sizes and shapes. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Koester v. Koester
green
1 sentence2004The test of adequacy in a judicial sale is the price received in comparison with what the property would bring in a fair sheriffs sale.’ ” Id. (quoting Koester, 543 S.W.2d at 55 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
O'BRIEN v. Muskin Corp.
green
2 sentences1991O’Brien v. Muskin Corporation, 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (1983); 3 Devitt, Black mar & Wolff, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, 4th Ed. (1987), § 82.09, p. 233. 1991O’Brien v. Muskin Corporation, 94 N.J. 169 , 463 A.2d 298 (1983); 3 Devitt, Black mar & Wolff, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, 4th Ed. (1987), § 82.09, p. 233. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Quinn
green
1 sentence1985In State v. Quinn, supra, an appendix to the opinion suggests topics which the trial judge should discuss with the defendant in determining the adequacy of the waiver of counsel. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Wright
green
2 sentences1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. 1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. McMillian
green
1 sentence1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Interest of ADR
green
2 sentences1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. 1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. 1984Those cases include State v. Wright, supra, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1974); In Interest of A.D.R., supra, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McMillian, 514 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. banc 1974); and State v. Ross, supra, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1974), all antedating Juvenile Rule 122.05 which became effective January 1, 1982. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Clark v. N.H. Department of Health & Welfare
green
2 sentences1977Appellant states that the case of Clark v. New Hampshire Dept. of Health & Welfare, 114 N.H. 99 , 315 A.2d 187 (1974), is “directly in point on the facts here.” In that case, the court held that administrative adoption of a “flat grant” program for aid to dependent children recipients was contrary to a statutory scheme which the court found to require a “case-by-case determination of the level of assistance necessary to provide reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health.” 315 A.2d at 190 . 1977Appellant states that the case of Clark v. New Hampshire Dept. of Health & Welfare, 114 N.H. 99 , 315 A.2d 187 (1974), is “directly in point on the facts here.” In that case, the court held that administrative adoption of a “flat grant” program for aid to dependent children recipients was contrary to a statutory scheme which the court found to require a “case-by-case determination of the level of assistance necessary to provide reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health.” 315 A.2d at 190 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Henry v. Crook
green
2 sentences1958That our conclusion that the necessity for and adequacy of the warning in this case should be decided by a jury would be the view of the New York courts is attested by Pease v. Sinclair Refining Co., supra, 104 F.2d 186 [3]; Henry v. Crook, 202 App.Div. 19 , 195 N.Y.S. 642 ; Rosebrock v. General Electric Co., 236 N.Y. 227 , 140 N.E. 571, 574 [2-4]; Moss v. Fred Perlberg, Inc., Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 922 . 1958That our conclusion that the necessity for and adequacy of the warning in this case should be decided by a jury would be the view of the New York courts is attested by Pease v. Sinclair Refining Co., supra, 104 F.2d 186 [3]; Henry v. Crook, 202 App.Div. 19 , 195 N.Y.S. 642 ; Rosebrock v. General Electric Co., 236 N.Y. 227 , 140 N.E. 571, 574 [2-4]; Moss v. Fred Perlberg, Inc., Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 922 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.