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 1881–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1982Chief Justice Donnelly filed a dissenting opinion which quoted Judge Wasserstrom of the Western District in Williams v. State, 507 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Mo.App.1974): “Were a prisoner permitted to challenge the effectiveness of his legal counsel at the first 27.26 hearing by means of filing a second 27.26, then he could likewise challenge his representation at the second hearing by filing a third 27.26, and so on ad infinitum. 1981To borrow from Judge Wasserstrom in Williams v. State, 507 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Mo.App.1974): “Were a prisoner permitted to challenge the effectiveness of his legal counsel at the first 27.26 hearing by means of filing a second 27.26, then he could likewise challenge his representation at the second hearing by filing a third 27.26, and so on ad infinitum. | 3 | 3 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Smith v. State, 741 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.App.1987). 1988Smith v. State, 741 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.App.E.D.1987). | 2 | 2 |
Brauch v. Stategreen2 sentences1989The policy behind prohibiting attacks on effective assistance of counsel in a prior post-conviction proceeding was reiterated by the Missouri Supreme Court in Brauch v. State, 653 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo.banc 1983): Were a prisoner permitted to challenge the effectiveness of his legal counsel at the first 27.26 hearing by means of filing a second 27.26, then he could likewise challenge his representation at the second hearing by filing a third 27.26, and so on ad infinitum. 1989This could go on ‘ad infini-tum’ and ‘intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule.’ ” Comparing movant’s contention to successive claims of ineffectiveness of legal counsel in handling Rule 27.26 motions respondent cites and quotes from Branch v. State, 653 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo. banc 1983), quoting Williams v. State, 507 S.W.2d 664, 666-667 (Mo.App.1974). | 2 | 2 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973); Reiter v. Camp, 518 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Reiter v. Campgreen1 sentence1987Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973); Reiter v. Camp, 518 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zackowitzgreen2 sentences1973It is a part of our fundamental law that “[i]n a very real sense a defendant starts his life afresh when he stands before a jury, a prisoner at the bar.” People v. Zackowitz, 254 N.Y. 192 , 172 N.E. 466, 468 (1930). 1973It is a part of our fundamental law that “[i]n a very real sense a defendant starts his life afresh when he stands before a jury, a prisoner at the bar.” People v. Zackowitz, 254 N.Y. 192 , 172 N.E. 466, 468 (1930). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence1973See also State v. Cook, 282 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.1955), where the prosecutor informed the jury that the accused had “killed one man already.” Since the defendant took the stand he was subject to cross-examination concerning previous convictions. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weedengreen2 sentences1913C. 1855, 5 p. 1181.] The defendant was present with his counsel when the jury 'was impaneled, waived the reading of the indictment, a plea of not guilty was entered of record, and we do not see how he can be injuriously affected because the arraignment was not made in a solemn, formal manner.” Also in State v. Weeden, 133 Mo. 70, 79 ( 34 S. W. 473 ), the court said: ‘ “To arraign is nothing else but to call the prisoner to the bar of the court to answer the matter charged upon him in the indictment.’ [4 Black. 1913C. 1855, 5 p. 1181.] The defendant was present with his counsel when the jury 'was impaneled, waived the reading of the indictment, a plea of not guilty was entered of record, and we do not see how he can be injuriously affected because the arraignment was not made in a solemn, formal manner.” Also in State v. Weeden, 133 Mo. 70, 79 ( 34 S. W. 473 ), the court said: ‘ “To arraign is nothing else but to call the prisoner to the bar of the court to answer the matter charged upon him in the indictment.’ [4 Black. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garner v. Jones
green
2 sentences2002Blackburn’s petition averred that the Board’s action in failing to follow its own rules and regulations in its determination of Blackburn’s parole release status amounted to a “gross abuse of discretion.” Blackburn asserts that this very claim was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 , 120 S.Ct. 1362 , 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000), which states that upon a showing the parole board engaged in a “gross abuse of discretion,” a prisoner can challenge a pa role denial in the Georgia courts. 2002Blackburn’s petition averred that the Board’s action in failing to follow its own rules and regulations in its determination of Blackburn’s parole release status amounted to a “gross abuse of discretion.” Blackburn asserts that this very claim was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 , 120 S.Ct. 1362 , 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000), which states that upon a showing the parole board engaged in a “gross abuse of discretion,” a prisoner can challenge a pa role denial in the Georgia courts. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Woolsey v. State
green
1 sentence1989Id. at 485 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences1987Its procedure does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at the bar. [citations omitted] Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). 1987Its procedure does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at the bar. [citations omitted] Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Crosswhite v. State
green
2 sentences1981That patent absurdity would intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule." See also McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.1973); Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.1972); and Crosswhite v. State, 438 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1969). 1981That patent absurdity would intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule.” See also McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.1973); Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.1972); and Crosswhite v. State, 438 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1969). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McCormick v. State
green
2 sentences1981That patent absurdity would intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule." See also McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.1973); Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.1972); and Crosswhite v. State, 438 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1969). 1981That patent absurdity would intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule.” See also McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.1973); Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.1972); and Crosswhite v. State, 438 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1969). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Huffman v. State
green
2 sentences1981That patent absurdity would intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule." See also McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.1973); Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.1972); and Crosswhite v. State, 438 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1969). 1981That patent absurdity would intolerably clutter the courts and would reduce the whole legal process to ridicule.” See also McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324 (Mo.1973); Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.1972); and Crosswhite v. State, 438 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1969). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gillman v. Saxby
green
1 sentence1976The two cases, in my opinion, that make this explicitly clear are United States v. Croft, supra, and Gillman v. Saxby, supra. None of these cases cause any interference with the state or federal authorities trying a prisoner for the violation of their respective laws. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
United States v. Bert Croft, Jr.
green
1 sentence1976The two cases, in my opinion, that make this explicitly clear are United States v. Croft, supra, and Gillman v. Saxby, supra. None of these cases cause any interference with the state or federal authorities trying a prisoner for the violation of their respective laws. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In re Clark
green
2 sentences1972And this, too, no matter what court has theretofore denied relief, unless it be a court of superior jurisdiction.” Ex parte Clark, 208 Mo. 121 , 106 S.W. 990 , l.c. 996. 1972And this, too, no matter what court has theretofore denied relief, unless it be a court of superior jurisdiction.” Ex parte Clark, 208 Mo. 121 , 106 S.W. 990 , l.c. 996. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Freeman v. People
green
1 sentence1881The juror should be perfectly impartial, and indifferent causes, apparently very slight, are good causes of challenge; and that- which is good cause for quashing the array is good cause of challenge to the polls. * * * From these cases, particularly the one which states a suit pending, which implies malice, it appears that general hostility, by which I mean that which is not confined to the particular suit, is cause of. challenge.” In Freeman v. The People, 4 Denio, 9 , the triers of challenges were sworn to “ well and truly try and well and truly find, whether the juror is indifferent between | 1 | 1881–1881 |
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.