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 1988–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dorris v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“In a motion filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, the movant must allege facts showing a basis for relief to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing.” Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 267 . 2013Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012), contains the following summary of the law that must be applied to determine whether a movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 29.15 motion: In a motion filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, the movant must allege facts showing a basis for relief to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing. | 3 | 6 |
Pollard v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Pollard v. State, 807 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Mo. banc 1991). 2012“In a motion filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, the movant must allege facts showing a basis for relief to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing.” Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 267 (citing Pollard v. State, 807 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Mo. banc 1991)). | 3 | 3 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2017As this Court held in Ziebol v. State, “a mere allegation that a movant’s attorney told him to lie at the plea proceeding does not entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing, and as here, such allegations can be refuted by the record.” 436 S.W.3d at 217 (citing Cooper v. State, 879 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994)); see also Pines v. State, 778 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). 2013Cooper v. State, 879 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). | 2 | 2 |
Isaiah Forman v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2024Id. at 48. | 1 | 1 |
Pines v. Stategreen1 sentence2017As this Court held in Ziebol v. State, “a mere allegation that a movant’s attorney told him to lie at the plea proceeding does not entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing, and as here, such allegations can be refuted by the record.” 436 S.W.3d at 217 (citing Cooper v. State, 879 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994)); see also Pines v. State, 778 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Robinson v. State, 785 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
LaRose v. Stategreen1 sentence1992LaRose v. State, 724 S.W.2d 339, 340 (Mo.App. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Chapman v. State, 720 S.W.2d 17, 18 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ziebol v. State
green
1 sentence2017As this Court held in Ziebol v. State, “a mere allegation that a movant’s attorney told him to lie at the plea proceeding does not entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing, and as here, such allegations can be refuted by the record.” 436 S.W.3d at 217 (citing Cooper v. State, 879 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994)); see also Pines v. State, 778 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Morrow v. State
green
1 sentence2001Three elements must be met within a motion for post-conviction relief to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing: “(1) the motion must allege facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) the facts alleged must raise matters not refuted by the files and records in the case; and (3) the matters of which movant complains must have resulted in prejudice.” Morrow, 21 S.W.3d at 822-23 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hampton v. State
green
1 sentence1996Rule 24.035 entitles a movant to an evidentiary hearing on the movant’s motion if: 1) the movant alleges facts, rather than conclusions, which, if true, warrant relief; 2) the record does not refute those facts; and 3) the movant was prejudiced by the matters alleged. 3 Hampton v. State, 877 S.W.2d 250 , 252 (Mo.App.1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1995Brown v. State, 882 S.W.2d 154 (Mo.App.1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.