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.
14 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. McLaughlingreen1 sentence2023See McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d at 271–72. | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Hurleygreen1 sentence2020Here, the trial court conducted a hearing for the motion to dismiss and considered matters outside the pleadings in making its judgment. 3 “[W]hen the parties both submit matters outside the pleadings for the court's consideration,” the parties “waive notice of the court's conversion of the matter into a motion for summary judgment, and they likewise waive compliance with Rule 74.04's procedural requirements.” Lynch v. Hurley, 569 S.W.3d 33, 39 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pottergreen1 sentence1991State v. Potter, 747 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Travis v. Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1982This procedure followed that prescribed in Travis v. Kansas City, 491 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Mo.banc 1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zapata v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Travis v. Stone
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Barkley v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2012Here, the trial court conducted no analysis to determine if the undisputed facts showed whether Kirsch, the subcontractor, was an independent contractor or an employee under the “terms and nature of the agreement and the manner of its performance.” Barkley, 411 S.W.2d at 823 . 3 Whether Kirsch was an independent contractor for liability purposes was a disputed issue of material fact and thus Regency failed to meet its burden to show that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence2009The court conducted a hearing under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), about the admissibility of the phenolphthalein test results and overruled Taylor’s objection, allowing evidence of the phenolphthalein test results as a presumptive test for the presence of blood. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Stapleton
green
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Hunter
green
1 sentence1981State v. Hunter, 456 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.1979); State v. Sager, supra. Here the issue was not explored by the court and we cannot determine from the present state of the record what facts might have been presented had the court conducted a hearing. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Sager
green
1 sentence1981State v. Hunter, 456 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.1979); State v. Sager, supra. Here the issue was not explored by the court and we cannot determine from the present state of the record what facts might have been presented had the court conducted a hearing. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Jerry Dean Jones v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
green
1 sentence1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Jones v. Swenson
green
1 sentence1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
McCormick v. State
green
1 sentence1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Bibbs v. Missouri
neutral
2 sentences1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). 1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Bibbs v. State
green
1 sentence1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Stroder v. State
green
1 sentence1976Appellant’s counsel claims the record indicates appellant did not have the ability to consult with counsel “with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and did not have “factual or rational understanding of the proceedings against him” [which are the tests under Stroder v. State, 522 S.W.2d 77 (Mo.App.1975)]; that the disturbance and various outbursts in the courtroom indicate appellant’s “mentally unstable condition,” demonstrate his incapacity to act in a rational manner and constitute bona fide evidence that appellant was incompetent to stand trial; that the court should have suspen | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence1976Jones v. Swenson, 339 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff. 469 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1972); Anderson v. State, 493 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1973); McCormick v. State, 463 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.1971); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.App.1973), cert. den. 419 U.S. 852 , 95 S.Ct. 95 , 42 L.Ed.2d 84 ; Jones v. State, 505 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Nathaniel Burdette v. Dr. R. O. Settle
green
1 sentence1972State v. Bagges, 350 Mo. 984 , 169 S.W.2d 407 ; Burdette v. Settle, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 687 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Bagges
green
2 sentences1972State v. Bagges, 350 Mo. 984 , 169 S.W.2d 407 ; Burdette v. Settle, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 687 . 1972State v. Bagges, 350 Mo. 984 , 169 S.W.2d 407 ; Burdette v. Settle, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 687 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Sims v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol 1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Sims v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol 1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol 1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Auger
green
1 sentence1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence1971However, the court did not make a specific finding of record that the confessions were voluntary, as a result of which we made an order pursuant to the procedure adopted in State v. Auger, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 1 , and State v. Edwards, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 1 , as follows: “It appearing from our consideration of this case that the trial court admitted into evidence the oral and written confessions of defendant as testified to and identified by witnesses for the State; that prior thereto the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the competency of said confessions; and that fol | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Lord
green
1 sentence1961State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681, 698 , 162 S.W.2d 878, 887 ; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
State v. Hepperman
green
2 sentences1961State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681, 698 , 162 S.W.2d 878, 887 ; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737 . 1961State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681, 698 , 162 S.W.2d 878, 887 ; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.