13 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 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. Hartmangreen2 sentences2013State v. Hartman, 224 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Mo.App. 2010State v. Hartman, 224 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Mo.App.2007). | 2 | 2 |
Porter v. Bi-State Development Agencygreen2 sentences1999Of course, “[i]n determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the giving of a particular instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party tendering the instruction.” Porter v. Bi-State Development Agency, 710 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Mo.App. 1988Porter v. Bi-State Development Agency, 710 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Mo.App.1986). | 2 | 2 |
Flannery v. Whitakergreen2 sentences1992Grippe v. Momtazee, 705 S.W.2d 551, 553 (Mo.App. 1986); Flannery v. Whitaker, 612 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Mo.App.1981). 1992Grippe v. Momtazee, 705 S.W.2d 551, 553 (Mo.App.1986); Flannery v. Whitaker, 612 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Mo.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
Grippe v. Momtazeegreen2 sentences1992Grippe v. Momtazee, 705 S.W.2d 551, 553 (Mo.App. 1986); Flannery v. Whitaker, 612 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Mo.App.1981). 1992Grippe v. Momtazee, 705 S.W.2d 551, 553 (Mo.App.1986); Flannery v. Whitaker, 612 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Mo.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
State of Missouri v. Matthew R. Burnettgreen1 sentence2024See Burnett, 481 S.W.3d at 95 (internal quotation omitted) (“view[ing] the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the State, which was the party tendering the instruction”); see also Whitaker, 636 S.W.3d at 575 (internal citation omitted); Welch, 600 S.W.3d at 809. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Drisdelgreen1 sentence2016In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support an instruction for voluntary intoxication based on MAI-CR 3d. 310.50, “[w]e view the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the State, which was the party tendering the instruction.” State v. Drisdel, 417 S.W.3d 773, 787 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Holder v. Schenherrgreen1 sentence2004Holder v. Schenherr, 55 S.W.3d 505, 507 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Van Volkenburgh v. McBridegreen1 sentence2001Van Volkenburgh v. McBride, 2 S.W.3d 814, 821 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Boys' Club of Greater Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1986Carter v. Boys’ Club of Greater Kansas City, 552 S.W.2d 327, 333 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Milam v. Vestalgreen1 sentence1985Milam v. Vestal, 671 S.W.2d 448, 450 (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Christiangreen1 sentence1981Williams v. Christian, 520 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.