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 1905–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
California v. Greenred2 sentences2007“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “[W]here the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem.” California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1937 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). “[T]he Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant’s out-of-court statements, as long as the declarant is testifying as a witness an 2007“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “[W]here the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem.” California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1937 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). “[T]he Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant’s out-of-court statements, as long as the declarant is testifying as a witness an | 1 | 3 |
State v. Howellgreen2 sentences2022“Where the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross- examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out- of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem.” [California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970).] “[T]he Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant’s out-of-court statements, as long as the declarant is testifying as a witness and subject to full and effective cross-examination.” [ Id. at 158, 90 S.Ct. 1930 .] State v. Kleeschulte, 618 S.W.3d 246 , 251–52 2021“Where the declarant is not absent, but is 6 present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem.” [California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 (1970).] “[T]he Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant’s out-of-court statements, as long as the declarant is testifying as a witness and subject to full and effective cross-examination.” [Id. at 158.] Howell, 226 S.W.3d at 896 . | 1 | 2 |
Niederkorn v. Niederkorngreen1 sentence1996Niederkorn v. Niederkorn, 616 S.W.2d 529, 539 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
American Institute of Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Brooksgreen1 sentence1987Id. at 934 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2022Generally, hearsay is not admissible unless 7 Although Defendant expressly abandons his Confrontation Clause claim, he later argues in his brief that Wife’s statements to the 911 operator were testimonial hearsay “bringing the Confrontation Clause into play.” However, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and subsequent Missouri cases state: [w]here[,] as here, “the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” [Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 .] “T 2022Generally, hearsay is not admissible unless 7 Although Defendant expressly abandons his Confrontation Clause claim, he later argues in his brief that Wife’s statements to the 911 operator were testimonial hearsay “bringing the Confrontation Clause into play.” However, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and subsequent Missouri cases state: [w]here[,] as here, “the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” [Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 .] “T | 5 | 2007–2025 |
Gray v. McDonald
green
2 sentences1919These sections; 5426 and 5427, Revised Statutes 1909, furnish the basis for wilful wrongs such as unjustifiable assaults. [Cray v. McDonald, 104 Mo. 303 .] The clause in this instruction directing the jury to specifically consider the facts constituting the negligence sounds much like authorizing the jury to aggravate the damages if the evidence of negligence would justify. 1917These sections 5426 and 5427, Eevised Statutes-1909, furnish the basis for wilful wrongs such as unjustifiable assaults. [Gray v. McDonald, 104 Mo. 303 .] The clause in this instruction directing the jury to specifically consider the facts constituting the negligence sounds much like authorizing the jury to aggravate the damages if the evidence of negligence would justify. | 2 | 1917–1919 |
Burchfield v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Tolliver
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Szuch v. Ni Sun Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1939Having done so he was in no position to complain because the defendant accepted the issue and asked and secured an instruction thereon." *Page 379 [See, also, Szuch v. Ni Sun Lines, Inc., et al., 332 Mo. 469 , 58 S.W.2d 471 , l.c. 472, 473, and cases there cited.] Since plaintiffs invited and submitted the question of the negligence of deceased, they are in no position to complain that such question was submitted as to all of the defendants, although two of them did not plead such defense. 1939Having done so he was in no position to complain because the defendant accepted the issue and asked and secured an instruction thereon." *Page 379 [See, also, Szuch v. Ni Sun Lines, Inc., et al., 332 Mo. 469 , 58 S.W.2d 471 , l.c. 472, 473, and cases there cited.] Since plaintiffs invited and submitted the question of the negligence of deceased, they are in no position to complain that such question was submitted as to all of the defendants, although two of them did not plead such defense. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Andrew v. Linebaugh
green
1 sentence1922Thus directed, there is no reasonable ground for even the lay mind, however unfamiliar it may he with the rules of interpretation, to understand that the subsequent, words “after it was stolen” are not meant to assume the commission of the theft, hut that such words are to he construed in connection with and subordinate to the finding necessary to he made by the jury before they can find that the crime was committed.. *162 The general rule in regard to the manner in which instructions are to he construed is not inappropriate in this connection, viz: that a clause in an instruction is not to be | 1 | 1922–1922 |
State v. Parmenter
neutral
1 sentence1922Thus directed, there is no reasonable ground for even the lay mind, however unfamiliar it may he with the rules of interpretation, to understand that the subsequent, words “after it was stolen” are not meant to assume the commission of the theft, hut that such words are to he construed in connection with and subordinate to the finding necessary to he made by the jury before they can find that the crime was committed.. *162 The general rule in regard to the manner in which instructions are to he construed is not inappropriate in this connection, viz: that a clause in an instruction is not to be | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Garard v. Manufacturers' Coal & Coke Co.
green
2 sentences1913And the use of the word “likely,” under such circumstances, did not constitute reversible error. [See Garard v. Coal & Coke Co., 207 Mo. 242 , 105 S. W. 767 ; Holden v. Railroad, 108 Mo. App. 665 , 84 S. W. 133 .] IY. 1913And the use of the word “likely,” under such circumstances, did not constitute reversible error. [See Garard v. Coal & Coke Co., 207 Mo. 242 , 105 S. W. 767 ; Holden v. Railroad, 108 Mo. App. 665 , 84 S. W. 133 .] IY. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Holden v. Missouri Railroad
green
2 sentences1913And the use of the word “likely,” under such circumstances, did not constitute reversible error. [See Garard v. Coal & Coke Co., 207 Mo. 242 , 105 S. W. 767 ; Holden v. Railroad, 108 Mo. App. 665 , 84 S. W. 133 .] IY. 1913And the use of the word “likely,” under such circumstances, did not constitute reversible error. [See Garard v. Coal & Coke Co., 207 Mo. 242 , 105 S. W. 767 ; Holden v. Railroad, 108 Mo. App. 665 , 84 S. W. 133 .] IY. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Murray v. St. Louis Transit Co.
green
2 sentences1905This precise question was passed on by the Supreme Court in Murray v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 183 , 75 S. W. 611 , a case wherein the facts were very similar to those before us. 1905This precise question was passed on by the Supreme Court in Murray v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 183 , 75 S. W. 611 , a case wherein the facts were very similar to those before us. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.