Edwards rule in Missouri

13 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2016 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Oregon v. Bradshawgreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the reminder further supported that “there was not a violation of the Edwards rule.” Id. 2016The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the reminder further supported that “there was not a violation of the Edwards rule.” Id.	1	2
Maryland v. Shatzergreen scotus · 2010 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See id. at 106, 130 S.Ct. 1213 . 2016See id. at 106, 130 S.Ct. 1213 .	1	1
Minnick v. Mississippigreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Id. at 108, 130 S.Ct. 1213 ; See Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 151 , 111 S.Ct. 486 , 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990). 2016Id. at 108, 130 S.Ct. 1213 ; See Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 151 , 111 S.Ct. 486 , 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990).	1	1
United States v. Rafaela Monclavo-Cruzgreen ca9 · 1981 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1289-90 (9th Cir.1981) (“[T]his broad statement in Edwards, in contrast to its holding, has been circumscribed by Chadwick . • •> [i]n light of these principles, we confine the Edwards exception to the person and clothing of an arrestee.”). 2016See United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1289-90 (9th Cir.1981) (“[T]his broad statement in Edwards, in contrast to its holding, has been circumscribed by Chadwick . • •> [i]n light of these principles, we confine the Edwards exception to the person and clothing of an arrestee.”).	1	1
United States v. Chadwickred scotus · 1977 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Chadwick, 433 U.S. at 15 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 (holding that luggage that was not within arrestee’s immediate control could not be searched incident to arrest). 2016See Chadwick, 433 U.S. at 15 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 (holding that luggage that was not within arrestee’s immediate control could not be searched incident to arrest).	1	1
State v. Manngreen moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462, 465 (Mo.App.S.D.2004).	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
Edwards v. Arizona green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 2006Under the Miranda -Edwards rule, an accused who has requested to speak to an attorney "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, 451 U.S. at 484-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 . 2006Under the Miranda -Edwards rule, an accused who has requested to speak to an attorney "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, 451 U.S. at 484-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 .	3	1994–2006
Arizona v. Roberson green scotus · 1988 2 sentences 1996The ease primarily relied on is Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), in which the Court states as follows: “... an 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.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) makes it clear that the Edwards rule applies even though the later 1996The ease primarily relied on is Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), in which the Court states as follows: “... an 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.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) makes it clear that the Edwards rule applies even though the later	2	1996–2004
Schoemehl v. Treasurer of the State green mo · 2007 1 sentence 2016The Commission’s order substituting Ms. Edwards pursuant to section 287.580 is merely a procedural matter that does not reach the merits of whether she is entitled to Mr. Edwards’s PTD benefits under the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Schoemehl v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri, 217 S.W.3d 900 (Mo. banc 2007).	1	2016–2016
State v. White green moctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2012There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Edwards guilty without these comments, and he fails to prove “a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent these remarks.” Id. at 564 .	1	2012–2012
State v. Bremenkamp green moctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2006Finding the reasoning of Farris to be sound, we held in State v. Bremenkamp, 190 S.W.3d 487, 492-93 , that the Miranda -Edwards rule does not extend beyond a "break in custody." In keeping with this Court's prior holdings, when Defendant was again in custody on January 9, 2003, he was required to reassert his right to counsel, in order for the Miranda -Edwards rule to apply.	1	2006–2006
State v. Edwards green moctapp · 1996 1 sentence 2001The facts of this case have been described both in Edward’s direct appeal, State v. Edwards, 918 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.App.1996), and in this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ grant of Edwards’ motion to recall the mandate, State v. Edwards, 983 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. banc 1999) (Edwards II).	1	2001–2001
State v. Edwards green mo · 1999 1 sentence 2001The facts of this case have been described both in Edward’s direct appeal, State v. Edwards, 918 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.App.1996), and in this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ grant of Edwards’ motion to recall the mandate, State v. Edwards, 983 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. banc 1999) (Edwards II).	1	2001–2001
Michigan v. Jackson red scotus · 1986 2 sentences 1996The court held that he had appropriately initiated the conversation, and that there was no Edwards violation, or of the holding of Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 , 106 S.Ct. 1404 , 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986) which holds that the Edwards rule applies to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel once counsel has been appointed. 1996The court held that he had appropriately initiated the conversation, and that there was no Edwards violation, or of the holding of Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 , 106 S.Ct. 1404 , 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986) which holds that the Edwards rule applies to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel once counsel has been appointed.	1	1996–1996
Smith v. Illinois green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1994Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 94 , 105 S.Ct. 490, 492 , 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984); Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485 , 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . 1994Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 94 , 105 S.Ct. 490, 492 , 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984); Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485 , 101 S.Ct. at 1885 .	1	1994–1994
Bandag of Springfield, Inc. v. Bandag, Inc. green moctapp · 1983 1 sentence 1991She first argues this was error because that count alleged the elements of a claim for interference with a contract or business expectancy, citing Bandag of Springfield, Inc. v. Bandag Inc., 662 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.1983).	1	1991–1991
Henry v. State ex rel. Russell neutral mo · 1846 1 sentence 1912This 'court has held that failure to approve a bond does not relieve the sureties thereon from liability (Jones v. State, 7 Mo. l. c. 85) and has applied this rule to bonds of executors and administrators. [Hen ry v. State, 9 Mo. 769 ; James v. Dixon, 21 Mo. l. c. 539, 540; State to use v. Farmer, 54 Mo. l. c. 444, 445.] It was also held that the statute prohibiting the acceptance of an attorney-at-law as surety on an administrator’s bond, though mandatory in form, is directory in fact and that an attorney having signed such a bond as surety could not rely upon the statute to relieve him of hi	1	1912–1912

Where else courts name it

TX 92 (1986–2026) CA 77 (1981–2026) IL 57 (1980–2024) VA 52 (1986–2026) PA 35 (1986–2025) GA 31 (1986–2026) WI 30 (1973–2025) OH 25 (1988–2025) MS 23 (1992–2021) DC 20 (1977–2023) AL 20 (1980–2015) CO 18 (1989–2026) LA 18 (1982–2018) FL 17 (1981–2026) TN 16 (1985–2021) KS 16 (1994–2018) WA 15 (1982–2025) MI 13 (1983–2024) MO 13 (1912–2016) MN 13 (1989–2015) IN 13 (1987–2019) NJ 12 (1986–2025) DE 10 (1986–2017) AZ 10 (1977–2022) MD 10 (1993–2013) OR 9 (1986–2025) SC 9 (1978–2016) AK 8 (1983–2019) MA 8 (1991–2014) OK 8 (1974–2008) KY 6 (1973–2021) CT 6 (1991–2022) AR 6 (1988–2001) NC 6 (1985–2018) NV 5 (1985–2013) NY 5 (1979–2018) UT 4 (1984–2023) NE 4 (2018–2025) WY 4 (1991–2011) ME 4 (1990–2012) WV 4 (1995–2013) IA 4 (2003–2021) SD 4 (1990–2019) VT 3 (1986–1999) NM 3 (2012–2016) ID 3 (1982–2011) HI 2 (1983–2014) NH 2 (1983–2003) RI 2 (2002–2004) MT 2 (2009–2011)

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