party alleging error in Missouri

15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Holder v. Schenherrgreen moctapp · 2001 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2003–2014 2 sentences 2003Finally, the "burden of proof rests with the party alleging error." Id. 2003Finally, the “burden of proof rests with the party alleging error.” Id.	1	3
Howes v. Howesgreen moctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C., 494 S.W.3d 537, 559 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 , 90–91 (Mo. banc 2010)).	1	1
Johnston v. Norrell Health Care, Inc.green moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998“A party alleging a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 must allege that (1) defendants contracted, combined or conspired among each other; (2) the combination or conspiracy produced adverse, anticompetitive effects within relevant product and geographic markets; (3) the objects of and the conduct pursuant to the contract or conspiracy were illegal; and (4) plaintiff was injured as a proximate result of the conspiracy.” Johnston v. Norrell Health Care, Inc., 835 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo.App.	1	1
Cockrum v. Cockrumgreen moctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997“In a will contest case, the burden of proving revocation is on the party alleging the defense.” Cockrum v. Cockrum, supra, at 206.	1	1
Yates v. Jeansgreen moctapp · 1961 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 1 sentence 1977Yates v. Jeans, 345 S.W.2d 657, 660 [1] (Mo.App.1961); 95 C.J.S.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Jackson v. Hardin green mo · 1884 2 sentences 1908In the recent case of State v. Arnold, 206 Mo. l. c. 597, Judge Gantt, speaking for this court, said.': “It has been uniformly ruled by this court that a mere refusal to hear an answer is not alone sufficient to constitute error, but that it is the duty of the party alleging error to indicate to the court the nature and character of the evidence which he proposes to elicit. [Aull Savings Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. loc. cit. 523, 524; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. loc. cit. 54, 55.]” In State v. Foister, 202 Mo. l. c. 48, it was expressly rule 1907It has heen uniformly ruled by this court that a mere refusal to hear an answer is not alone sufficient to constitute error, but that it is the duty of the party alleging error to indicate to the court the nature and' character of the evidence which he proposes to elicit. [Aull Savings Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. l. c. 523, 524; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. l. c. 54, 55.] ni.	3	1894–1908
Aull Savings Bank v. Aull's Administrator neutral mo · 1883 2 sentences 1908In the recent case of State v. Arnold, 206 Mo. l. c. 597, Judge Gantt, speaking for this court, said.': “It has been uniformly ruled by this court that a mere refusal to hear an answer is not alone sufficient to constitute error, but that it is the duty of the party alleging error to indicate to the court the nature and character of the evidence which he proposes to elicit. [Aull Savings Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. loc. cit. 523, 524; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. loc. cit. 54, 55.]” In State v. Foister, 202 Mo. l. c. 48, it was expressly rule 1907It has heen uniformly ruled by this court that a mere refusal to hear an answer is not alone sufficient to constitute error, but that it is the duty of the party alleging error to indicate to the court the nature and' character of the evidence which he proposes to elicit. [Aull Savings Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. l. c. 523, 524; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. l. c. 54, 55.] ni.	3	1894–1908
State v. Martin green mo · 1894 2 sentences 1910We shall not assume that the trial court erred unless it is made to appear.” See also State v. Martin, 124 Mo. 514 ; Morton v. Heidorn, 135 Mo. 608 ; Seibert v. Tiffany, 8 Mo. App. l. c. 36. 2. 1908In the recent case of State v. Arnold, 206 Mo. l. c. 597, Judge Gantt, speaking for this court, said.': “It has been uniformly ruled by this court that a mere refusal to hear an answer is not alone sufficient to constitute error, but that it is the duty of the party alleging error to indicate to the court the nature and character of the evidence which he proposes to elicit. [Aull Savings Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. loc. cit. 523, 524; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. loc. cit. 54, 55.]” In State v. Foister, 202 Mo. l. c. 48, it was expressly rule	2	1908–1910
Scrivener Oil Co., Inc. v. Crider green moctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2023Scrivener Oil Co., 304 S.W.3d at 272 .	1	2023–2023
Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C. green mo · 2010 1 sentence 2020SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C., 494 S.W.3d 537, 559 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 , 90–91 (Mo. banc 2010)).	1	2020–2020
Van Volkenburgh v. McBride green moctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2001Id.	1	2001–2001
Cornell v. Texaco, Inc. green mo · 1986 1 sentence 1999Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 .	1	1999–1999
Defino v. Civic Center Corp. green moctapp · 1986 1 sentence 1992Defino, 718 S.W.2d at 510 (citing Martin B.	1	1992–1992
Morton v. Heidorn neutral · 1896 1 sentence 1910We shall not assume that the trial court erred unless it is made to appear.” See also State v. Martin, 124 Mo. 514 ; Morton v. Heidorn, 135 Mo. 608 ; Seibert v. Tiffany, 8 Mo. App. l. c. 36. 2.	1	1910–1910
State v. Hodges neutral mo · 1898 1 sentence 1908In the recent case of State v. Arnold, 206 Mo. l. c. 597, Judge Gantt, speaking for this court, said.': “It has been uniformly ruled by this court that a mere refusal to hear an answer is not alone sufficient to constitute error, but that it is the duty of the party alleging error to indicate to the court the nature and character of the evidence which he proposes to elicit. [Aull Savings Bank v. Aull, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. loc. cit. 523, 524; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. loc. cit. 54, 55.]” In State v. Foister, 202 Mo. l. c. 48, it was expressly rule	1	1908–1908
Hickman v. Green green · 1894 1 sentence 1894Aull Savings Bank v. Aull’s Adm’r, 80 Mo. 199 ; Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175 ; State ex rel. v. Leland, 82 Mo. 266 ; Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165 .	1	1894–1894

Where else courts name it

GA 259 (1950–2026) ID 34 (2004–2026) LA 26 (1984–2015) KS 26 (1952–2026) MN 21 (1889–2017) NY 19 (1852–2024) SD 19 (1896–2010) WI 16 (1962–2026) OH 16 (1999–2026) MO 15 (1894–2023) MI 15 (1899–2025) IL 14 (1902–2026) TX 13 (1891–2024) AL 13 (1893–2007) ND 12 (1904–2001) CA 11 (1867–2019) NC 10 (1876–2013) MT 10 (1907–2011) WA 8 (2014–2025) IN 7 (1979–2012) MD 7 (2011–2023) WY 7 (1996–2020) NJ 6 (1955–2026) NE 6 (1892–2026) TN 5 (1993–2002) ME 5 (1997–2008) RI 5 (1996–2023) UT 4 (1989–2005) NM 4 (1913–1966) IA 4 (1943–2023) VT 4 (1981–2010) AK 4 (1991–2023) AR 4 (1982–1989) OK 3 (1911–2011) CO 3 (1926–2017) KY 2 (1995–2019) HI 2 (1980–1999) PA 2 (1983–1984) MS 2 (2004–2005) MA 2 (2014–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check