13 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charles K. Moore v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2021See Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015). 2 The motion court rejected these claims after a hearing and denied relief. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Hertensteingreen1 sentence2006Appellants admit that by not objecting they failed to preserve the issue for review and ask this Court to review the issue as plain error under Rule 84.13(c). 3 An appellate court may review an issue using plain error if it determines that a “manifest injustice” or “miscarriage of justice has resulted from plain error.” Collins v. Hertenstein, 90 S.W.3d 87, 98 (Mo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kindergreen1 sentence2002See State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 323 (Mo. banc 1996); see also Rule 30.20. | 1 | 1 |
Coats v. Hickmangreen1 sentence2000Coats v. Hickman, 11 S.W.3d 798, 805-06 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence1998State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 , 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clemmonsgreen1 sentence1996The Supreme Court has instructed that “courtfe] should rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument[.] This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gillespiegreen1 sentence1992State v. Gillespie, 792 S.W.2d 35, 36 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Disbrow v. Boehmergreen1 sentence1988See Disbrow v. Boehmer, 711 S.W.2d 917, 927 (Mo.App.1986); Arkansas-Missouri Power Company v. Haines, 592 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Mo.App.1980). [6] Before us plaintiff has not requested that we review this issue as plain error and, because we do not believe the error materially affected the merits of the action, Rule 84.13(b) nor that it resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, Rule 84.13(c), we decline to do so sua sponte. | 1 | 1 |
Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Hainesgreen1 sentence1988See Disbrow v. Boehmer, 711 S.W.2d 917, 927 (Mo.App.1986); Arkansas-Missouri Power Company v. Haines, 592 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Mo.App.1980). [6] Before us plaintiff has not requested that we review this issue as plain error and, because we do not believe the error materially affected the merits of the action, Rule 84.13(b) nor that it resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, Rule 84.13(c), we decline to do so sua sponte. | 1 | 1 |
Wilborn v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1980However, generally, failure to object to an argument at the time counsel is addressing the jury results in a waiver of any rights to complain about the argument on appeal, Wilborn v. Williams, 555 S.W.2d 44, 46 (Mo.App.1977), because the trial court must be given an opportunity to take corrective action to cure any prejudicial effect of an erroneous argument. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilkerson v. Mosley
green
1 sentence1998State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 , 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Mayes v. Newberry
green
1 sentence1998State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 , 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Clemmons v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1996The Supreme Court has instructed that “courtfe] should rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument[.] This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Clemmons v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1996The Supreme Court has instructed that “courtfe] should rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument[.] This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sherpy v. Bilyeu
green
2 sentences1995This court held the plaintiff waived the objection and in declining to review the issue as plain error stated, “Plain error is not a doctrine available to revive issues already abandoned by selection of trial strategy or by oversight.” 608 S.W.2d at 523 . 1995This court held the plaintiff waived the objection and in declining to review the issue as plain error stated, "Plain error is not a doctrine available to revive issues already abandoned by selection of trial strategy or by oversight." 608 S.W.2d at 523 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Robbins v. Brown-Strauss Corp.
green
2 sentences1980Manifest injustice not appearing, we decline to address the issue as plain error. *524 In her reply brief, plaintiff cites Robbins v. Brown-Strauss Corp., 363 Mo. 1157 , 257 S.W.2d 643 (1953), as authority for the proposition that a complaining party does not lose a right to relief by failing to object to closing argument. 1980Manifest injustice not appearing, we decline to address the issue as plain error. *524 In her reply brief, plaintiff cites Robbins v. Brown-Strauss Corp., 363 Mo. 1157 , 257 S.W.2d 643 (1953), as authority for the proposition that a complaining party does not lose a right to relief by failing to object to closing argument. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Rothaus
green
1 sentence1979I believe this case to be controlled by State v. Rothaus, 530 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. 1975). *536 I am more disturbed by the fact that we are asked to rule the issue as plain error under the circumstances of this case. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence1978State v. Brown, supra, 525 S.W.2d l.c. 567[3]. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.