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.
15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bair v. Faustgreen2 sentences2017In re S.M.B., Jr., 254 S.W.3d 214, 220-21 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008); see also Bair v. Faust, 408 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. banc 2013) (the adverse inference rule “allows for ‘an unfavorable inference to be drawn against a party, knowledgeable of the facts of the controversy, who fails to testify’”) (quoting Pasternak v. Mashak, 428 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1967)). 2017In re S.M.B., Jr., 254 S.W.3d 214, 220-21 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008); see also Bair v. Faust, 408 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. banc 2013) (the adverse inference rule “allows for ‘an unfavorable inference to be drawn against a party, knowledgeable of the facts of the controversy, who fails to testify’”) (quoting Pasternak v. Mashak, 428 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1967)). | 3 | 3 |
Pasternak v. Mashakgreen2 sentences2017In re S.M.B., Jr., 254 S.W.3d 214, 220-21 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008); see also Bair v. Faust, 408 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. banc 2013) (the adverse inference rule “allows for ‘an unfavorable inference to be drawn against a party, knowledgeable of the facts of the controversy, who fails to testify’”) (quoting Pasternak v. Mashak, 428 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1967)). 2017In re S.M.B., Jr., 254 S.W.3d 214, 220-21 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008); see also Bair v. Faust, 408 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. banc 2013) (the adverse inference rule “allows for ‘an unfavorable inference to be drawn against a party, knowledgeable of the facts of the controversy, who fails to testify’”) (quoting Pasternak v. Mashak, 428 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1967)). | 3 | 3 |
In Re SMB, Jr.green2 sentences2017In re S.M.B., Jr., 254 S.W.3d 214, 220-21 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008); see also Bair v. Faust, 408 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. banc 2013) (the adverse inference rule “allows for ‘an unfavorable inference to be drawn against a party, knowledgeable of the facts of the controversy, who fails to testify’”) (quoting Pasternak v. Mashak, 428 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1967)). 2017In re S.M.B., Jr., 254 S.W.3d 214, 220-21 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008); see also Bair v. Faust, 408 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. banc 2013) (the adverse inference rule “allows for ‘an unfavorable inference to be drawn against a party, knowledgeable of the facts of the controversy, who fails to testify’”) (quoting Pasternak v. Mashak, 428 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1967)). | 2 | 3 |
Brissette v. Milner Chevrolet Companygreen2 sentences2002Brissette v. Milner Chevrolet Co., 479 S.W.2d 176, 182 (Mo.App.1972). 2002Brissette v. Milner Chevrolet Co., 479 S.W.2d 176, 182 (Mo.App.1972). | 2 | 2 |
Baldridge v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2013“Simple negligence ... is not sufficient to apply the adverse inference rule.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 2005Baldridge v. Dir. of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212, 222-23 (Mo.App.2002). | 1 | 2 |
Freight House Lofts Condo Ass'n v. VSI Meter Services, Inc.green1 sentence2019“Simple negligence” in failing to preserve documents, however, “is not sufficient to apply the adverse inference rule.” Freight House Lofts Condo Ass’n v. VSI Meter Servs., Inc., 402 S.W.3d 586, 595 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). 13 Tribus contends Greater Metro’s failure to produce all communications between Greater Metro staff and its agents entitles it to an adverse inference. | 1 | 1 |
John Munson Morris Margaret Morris v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences2016R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 900 (8th Cir.2004), we conclude that a district court must issue explicit findings of bad faith and prejudice prior to delivering an adverse inference instruction. 2016R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 900 (8th Cir.2004), we conclude that a district court must issue explicit findings of bad faith and prejudice prior to delivering an adverse inference instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrygreen1 sentence1993State v. Perry, 820 S.W.2d 570, 574 (Mo.App., E.D.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. St. Louis Public Service Co.green1 sentence1990Louis Public Serv., 251 S.W.2d 595, 599 (Mo.1952), as would have been Dr. Reed’s testimony as an expert. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frank Stevenson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
green
1 sentence2016Co. that in a case involving the alleged spoliation of evidence, a district court is required to make two findings before an adverse inference instruction is warranted: (1) "there must be a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth,” and (2) “[t]here must be a finding of prejudice to the opposing party.” 354 F.3d 739 , 746, 748 (8th Cir.2004). * * * Taking into consideration the gravity of an adverse inference instruction, which “brands one party as a bad actor,” Morris v. Union Pac. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Storey
green
1 sentence2001Therefore, “the prejudice against a defendant who invokes the privilege — prejudice which is ‘inescapably impressed on the jury’s consciousness’ — is not purely speculative as the State suggests.” Storey, 986 S.W.2d at 464-65 , quoting, Carter, 450 U.S. at 301 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 1112 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241 . 11 Another basis on which the State tries to distinguish Storey is that the Storey jury never received any adverse inference instruction at all, whereas here, the jury was given an adverse inference instruction at the close of the guilt phase of the trial. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Carter v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2001Therefore, “the prejudice against a defendant who invokes the privilege — prejudice which is ‘inescapably impressed on the jury’s consciousness’ — is not purely speculative as the State suggests.” Storey, 986 S.W.2d at 464-65 , quoting, Carter, 450 U.S. at 301 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 1112 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241 . 11 Another basis on which the State tries to distinguish Storey is that the Storey jury never received any adverse inference instruction at all, whereas here, the jury was given an adverse inference instruction at the close of the guilt phase of the trial. 2001Therefore, “the prejudice against a defendant who invokes the privilege — prejudice which is ‘inescapably impressed on the jury’s consciousness’ — is not purely speculative as the State suggests.” Storey, 986 S.W.2d at 464-65 , quoting, Carter, 450 U.S. at 301 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 1112 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241 . 11 Another basis on which the State tries to distinguish Storey is that the Storey jury never received any adverse inference instruction at all, whereas here, the jury was given an adverse inference instruction at the close of the guilt phase of the trial. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Kelly Ex Rel. Kelly v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1998Kelly, 798 S.W.2d at 703 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Libby v. Hill
green
1 sentence1987Libby v. Hill, 687 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.1985) [7]. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.