91 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1895–2024 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Carrongreen2 sentences2014Standard of Review “Our review of a ruling on a motion to modify maintenance is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).” Almuttar, 25 S.W.3d at 671. 2008Our standard of review is provided by Murphy v. Carrón, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). | 3 | 3 |
Sparks v. Sparksgreen2 sentences2021Rule 84.04(e); Sparks v. Sparks, 417 S.W.3d 269, 282 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). 8 interest the spouse could earn from her share of the marital property, she is not required to deplete her apportioned share of the marital property before being entitled to maintenance. 2016Sparks v. Sparks, 417 S.W.3d 269, 280-81 (Mo.App.W.D.2013). | 2 | 2 |
Erickson v. Ericksongreen1 sentence2024“The standard of review is an essential portion of all appellate arguments; it outlines this [C]ourt’s role in disposing of the matter before us.” In re Marriage of Erickson, 419 S.W.3d 836, 845 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (quoting Waller v. Shippey, 251 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Waller v. Shippeygreen1 sentence2024“The standard of review is an essential portion of all appellate arguments; it outlines this [C]ourt’s role in disposing of the matter before us.” In re Marriage of Erickson, 419 S.W.3d 836, 845 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (quoting Waller v. Shippey, 251 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Lambert v. Holbertgreen1 sentence2023Standard of Review “We review the denial of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 74.06(b) to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.” Kissee v. E-Z Pawn, LLC, 290 S.W.3d 748, 750 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (citing Lambert v. Holbert, 172 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Lombardo v. Lombardogreen1 sentence2023Wife did not support this allegation with her sworn affidavit or testimony. “[A]llegations in a motion are not self-proving.” Lombardo v. Lombardo, 120 S.W.3d 232, 241 (Mo. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
DUNCAN-ANDERSON v. Duncangreen1 sentence2023More importantly, Rule 84.04(c) also requires “specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.” “[T]he unbiased and concise statement of facts must be supported with complete and accurate citation to the record, which is ‘mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record.’” Id. at 304 (quoting Duncan-Anderson v. Duncan, 321 S.W.3d 498, 499 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (per curiam)). | 1 | 1 |
Kissee v. E-Z Pawn, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Standard of Review “We review the denial of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 74.06(b) to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.” Kissee v. E-Z Pawn, LLC, 290 S.W.3d 748, 750 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (citing Lambert v. Holbert, 172 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Stucker v. Stuckergreen1 sentence2023Discussion “In Missouri, the right to appeal is purely statutory.” Stucker v. Stucker, 558 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Morse v. Morsegreen1 sentence2021More "[s]pecifically, monies borrowed after parties separated, but while they are still married, are presumed marital." Morse v. Morse, 366 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Pahlow, 39 S.W.3d at 92 ) (vehicle loan obtained after the parties separated was properly characterized as a court to address any shortfall in its findings prior to raising the issue before us."); In re Marriage of Wood, 262 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ("It is arguable that Husband's claim that the trial court failed to classify Wife's retirement account as either marital or non-marital property has not b | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Woodgreen1 sentence2021More "[s]pecifically, monies borrowed after parties separated, but while they are still married, are presumed marital." Morse v. Morse, 366 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Pahlow, 39 S.W.3d at 92 ) (vehicle loan obtained after the parties separated was properly characterized as a court to address any shortfall in its findings prior to raising the issue before us."); In re Marriage of Wood, 262 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ("It is arguable that Husband's claim that the trial court failed to classify Wife's retirement account as either marital or non-marital property has not b | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Michelgreen1 sentence2021See Michel, 142 S.W.3d at 927 ("Husband's argument does not cite to any portion of the record demonstrating" his claims). | 1 | 1 |
Lalumondiere v. Lalumondieregreen1 sentence2021However, "[i]t is a well-settled principle regarding custody matters that custody is not to be used as a reward or punishment of either parent, but rather it must be based upon the best interests of the child." Keel v. Keel, 439 S.W.3d 866, 879 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (citation omitted). "[W]e presume that the trial court reviewed all the evidence and awarded custody in the manner it believed would be in the best interests of the children." Meseberg, 580 S.W.3d at 67 (quoting Lalumondiere v. Lalumondiere, 293 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Slavens v. Slavensgreen1 sentence2021“A party on appeal generally must stand or fall by the theory on which he tried and submitted his case in the court below.” Slavens v. Slavens, 379 S.W.3d 900, 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rebecca Alport v. Jeffrey Alportgreen1 sentence2021Even if the trial court had incorrectly classified his shares of Kidi stock as marital property, Husband’s brief does not claim, let alone demonstrate, that the allegedly incorrect classification made the overall property distribution unfair.7 “Absent establishing before this Court that the property was in fact misidentified as marital and that such misidentification of the property did in fact cause the division of property to be unjust, [Husband] has abandoned these claims of error.” Id. at 687 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Kelly S. Keel v. Edward W. Keel, Respondent/Respondent.green1 sentence2021However, "[i]t is a well-settled principle regarding custody matters that custody is not to be used as a reward or punishment of either parent, but rather it must be based upon the best interests of the child." Keel v. Keel, 439 S.W.3d 866, 879 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (citation omitted). "[W]e presume that the trial court reviewed all the evidence and awarded custody in the manner it believed would be in the best interests of the children." Meseberg, 580 S.W.3d at 67 (quoting Lalumondiere v. Lalumondiere, 293 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
CHARLES HENRY STROH v. KELLY ANN STROH, Respondent-Respondent.green1 sentence2021See also Stroh, 454 S.W.3d at 363 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. David Trimmergreen1 sentence2021See id. at 596 (similarly remanding for dismissal of a claim barred by the doctrine of res judicata). | 1 | 1 |
First Community Credit Union v. Levisongreen1 sentence2019See First Cmty. Credit Union, 395 S.W.3d 571, 577 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (internal quotation omitted) (“If a judgment, by 7 implication, necessarily carries with it a finding upon other counts, the judgment will be sustained as final even though the count is not specifically mentioned.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Bolz v. Hatfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Coxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eagle Ex Rel. Estate of Eagle v. Redmondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dorris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hardt v. Vitae Foundation, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Bittnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ellsworth v. Wortheygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Interest of X. J-M. v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kelly v. Hurtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sharpe v. Sharpegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kim v. Kimgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dare v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marriage of Doss v. Dossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hair v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Marriage of Housegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Neal v. Nealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Owens v. Owensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Owens v. Division of Employment Securitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Travis v. Travisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pearman v. Department of Social Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forde v. Forde
green
2 sentences2018On remand, this Court specifically instructed the trial court to reconsider (1) Husband's motion to modify maintenance, pursuant to the statutory standard set forth in Section 452.370, 1 and (2) Husband's obligation to pay for Emma's college expenses in accordance with the factors set forth in Forde v. Forde , 190 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). 2016We instructed the trial court to, on remand, reconsider (1) Husband’s motion to modify maintenance pursuant to the statutory standard set forth in § 452.370 RSMo and (2) Husband’s obligation to pay for E.B.’s college expenses in light of the factors set out in Forde v. Forde, 190 S.W.3d 521 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). | 2 | 2016–2018 |
Evola v. Evola
green
2 sentences2018Barden I , 463 S.W.3d at 805 -07 . 2016In Barden I, we remanded the case to the trial court “for reconsideration of Husband’s motion to modify maintenance pursuant to the strict statutory standard set forth in [§ 452.370].” 463 S.W.3d at 805 . | 2 | 2016–2018 |
King v. King
green
2 sentences1992Cf. King v. King, 793 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1990). 1992Cf. King v. King, 793 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1990). | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Oldfield v. Oldfield
green
2 sentences1990Husband’s brief refers us to Oldfield v. Oldfield, 666 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App.E.D.1984) (Oldfield I) and Oldfield v. Oldfield, 688 S.W.2d 778 (Mo.App.E.D.1985) (Oldfield II). 1990Husband's brief refers us to Oldfield v. Oldfield, 666 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App.E.D.1984) (Oldfield I) and Oldfield v. Oldfield, 688 S.W.2d 778 (Mo.App.E.D.1985) (Oldfield II). | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Oldfield v. Oldfield
green
2 sentences1990Husband’s brief refers us to Oldfield v. Oldfield, 666 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App.E.D.1984) (Oldfield I) and Oldfield v. Oldfield, 688 S.W.2d 778 (Mo.App.E.D.1985) (Oldfield II). 1990Husband's brief refers us to Oldfield v. Oldfield, 666 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App.E.D.1984) (Oldfield I) and Oldfield v. Oldfield, 688 S.W.2d 778 (Mo.App.E.D.1985) (Oldfield II). | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Nichols v. Division of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2023More importantly, Rule 84.04(c) also requires “specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.” “[T]he unbiased and concise statement of facts must be supported with complete and accurate citation to the record, which is ‘mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record.’” Id. at 304 (quoting Duncan-Anderson v. Duncan, 321 S.W.3d 498, 499 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (per curiam)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Heck v. Heck
green
1 sentence2022More importantly, "[e]ven in a court-tried case, where a post-trial motion is not necessary to preserve an otherwise properly raised issue for appellate review, the appellant must make some effort to bring the alleged error to the trial court's attention." Heck, 318 S.W.3d at 767 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dunn v. Board of Curators
green
1 sentence2021See id.; Boehlein, 605 S.W.3d at 139, 141; Dunn, 413 S.W.3d at 377 ; Walker, 280 S.W.3d at 636 ; Vinson, 725 S.W.2d at 124 ; see also State ex rel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Walker v. Walker
green
1 sentence2021See id.; Boehlein, 605 S.W.3d at 139, 141; Dunn, 413 S.W.3d at 377 ; Walker, 280 S.W.3d at 636 ; Vinson, 725 S.W.2d at 124 ; see also State ex rel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Vinson v. Vinson
green
1 sentence2021See id.; Boehlein, 605 S.W.3d at 139, 141; Dunn, 413 S.W.3d at 377 ; Walker, 280 S.W.3d at 636 ; Vinson, 725 S.W.2d at 124 ; see also State ex rel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Marriage of Pahlow
green
1 sentence2021More "[s]pecifically, monies borrowed after parties separated, but while they are still married, are presumed marital." Morse v. Morse, 366 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Pahlow, 39 S.W.3d at 92 ) (vehicle loan obtained after the parties separated was properly characterized as a court to address any shortfall in its findings prior to raising the issue before us."); In re Marriage of Wood, 262 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ("It is arguable that Husband's claim that the trial court failed to classify Wife's retirement account as either marital or non-marital property has not b | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Geske v. Geske green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Channawood Holdings, LLC v. 1209 Washington, LLC green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re the Marriage of: CATHERINE S. CUNNINGHAM, and ROGER D. CUNNINGHAM, CATHERINE S. CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner/Respondent v. ROGER D. CUNNINGHAM green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Nardini v. Nardini green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Cosby v. Cosby green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Keller v. Keller green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| McElroy v. McElroy green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Estate of Casteel v. Litem green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Floyd R. Finch v. Joann K. Finch green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Snyder v. Snyder green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Miller v. Robinson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| M.M.A. v. L.L. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Atkins v. McPhetridge green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Pickering v. Pickering green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Woods v. Friendly Ford, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Fisher v. Fisher green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Jefferson v. Jefferson green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Burton v. Swann neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Boyd v. Boyd green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.