14 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nichols v. Bresnahangreen2 sentences1960As was stated in Nichols v. Bresnahan, 357 Mo. 1126 , 212 S.W.2d 570 , 573: * * * Negligence is one kind of tort, an unintentional injury usually predicated ‘upon failure to observe a prescribed standard of care (52 Amer.Jr., Sec. 20) while a willful, wanton, reckless injury is another kind of tort, an intentional injury often based upon an act done in utter disregard of the consequences. * * * ” An act cannot be both negligent and intentional at the same time, for such allegations are inconsistent. 1960As was stated in Nichols v. Bresnahan, 357 Mo. 1126 , 212 S.W.2d 570 , 573: * * * Negligence is one kind of tort, an unintentional injury usually predicated ‘upon failure to observe a prescribed standard of care (52 Amer.Jr., Sec. 20) while a willful, wanton, reckless injury is another kind of tort, an intentional injury often based upon an act done in utter disregard of the consequences. * * * ” An act cannot be both negligent and intentional at the same time, for such allegations are inconsistent. | 1 | 5 |
Minnick v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2006Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 , 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 , 159 L.Ed.2d *492 643, 653 (2004). “[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “[A]n accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 2006Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 , 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 , 159 L.Ed.2d *492 643, 653 (2004). “[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “[A]n accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2006Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 , 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 , 159 L.Ed.2d *492 643, 653 (2004). “[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “[A]n accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 2006Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 , 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 , 159 L.Ed.2d *492 643, 653 (2004). “[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “[A]n accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. New Liberty Hospital District v. Prattgreen2 sentences1988New Liberty Hospital District v. Pratt, 687 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1985). 1988New Liberty Hospital District v. Pratt, 687 S.W.2d 184,186 (Mo. banc 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Voss v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.green1 sentence1970Greene v. Morse, Mo.App., 375 S.W.2d 411, 417 ; Voss v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 270, 279 (10-12). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cook
green
1 sentence2018Id. (quoting Cook, 590 S.W.2d at 877 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Morgan v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2018Id. (quoting Cook, 590 S.W.2d at 877 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . [FJailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained. 2008Id. at 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . [FJailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2006Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 , 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 , 159 L.Ed.2d *492 643, 653 (2004). “[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “[A]n accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 2006Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 , 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 , 159 L.Ed.2d *492 643, 653 (2004). “[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “[A]n accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Walkeen Lewis Millinery Co. v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1996The judgment was irregular because “it was a *459 judgment given contrary to the course of the law, as pointed out by the statute, and for the reason of a want of adherence to the prescribed rule of procedure.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Wheat
green
1 sentence1990The court held in Wheat that the prescribed rule for post-conviction relief is the exclusive procedure for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. 4 Id. at 157-58 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Independence Flying Service, Inc. v. Abitz
green
1 sentence1984Independence Flying Service, supra. The evidence herein reveals that appellant did not make such a demand on the first day of the month. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Greene v. Morse
green
1 sentence1970Greene v. Morse, Mo.App., 375 S.W.2d 411, 417 ; Voss v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 270, 279 (10-12). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Brisboise v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
green
2 sentences1958Reckless conduct may be negligent in that it is unreasonable but it is and must be something more than unreasonable, ‘it must contain a risk of harm to others in excess of that necessary to make the conduct unreasonable and therefore, negligent.' 2 Restatement, Torts, p. 1294. ‘The actor’s (defendant’s) conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act * * * knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a h 1958Reckless conduct may be negligent in that it is unreasonable but it is and must be something more than unreasonable, `it must contain a risk of harm to others in excess of that necessary to make the conduct unreasonable and therefore, negligent.' 2 Restatement, Torts, p. 1294. `The actor's (defendant's) conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act * * * knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor's conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a h | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Downing v. Still
green
1 sentence1908Ed.), 512; Downing v. Still, 43 Mo. 309 -317.] It is clearly a case of irregular procedure as contra-distinguished from an erroneous judgment, which is a judgment, although regulary rendered, given contrary to law. [Orvis v. Elliott, 65 Mo. App. 96 .] The garnishee’s motion to that effect should have been sustained and the judgment set aside by the court below as for irregularity. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Orvis v. Elliott
neutral
1 sentence1908Ed.), 512; Downing v. Still, 43 Mo. 309 -317.] It is clearly a case of irregular procedure as contra-distinguished from an erroneous judgment, which is a judgment, although regulary rendered, given contrary to law. [Orvis v. Elliott, 65 Mo. App. 96 .] The garnishee’s motion to that effect should have been sustained and the judgment set aside by the court below as for irregularity. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.