12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2023 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. Villemegreen1 sentence2023See State v. Villeme, 574 S.W.3d 821, 824 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (declining to grant appellate review where the contested instruction was wholly absent from the record on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
C.L.E.A.N., LLC. v. Division of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2020See C.L.E.A.N., 405 S.W.3d at 627-28 (analyzing relationship between residential cleaning company and its cleaners); Fritts v. Williams, 992 S.W.2d 375, 384-85 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (analyzing relationship between residential plumbing company and substitute plumber). | 1 | 1 |
Fritts v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2020See C.L.E.A.N., 405 S.W.3d at 627-28 (analyzing relationship between residential cleaning company and its cleaners); Fritts v. Williams, 992 S.W.2d 375, 384-85 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (analyzing relationship between residential plumbing company and substitute plumber). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Craiggreen2 sentences2012State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Mo. banc 2009). 2012Id. at 677 . | 1 | 1 |
Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Levinegreen1 sentence2008“The primary purpose of the statutes authorizing the Board to discipline a physician’s license is to safeguard the public health and welfare.” Mo. Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Levine, 808 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Mo.App.W.D.1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Capriogreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., State v. Caprio, 477 A.2d 67, 72 (R.I.1984); Steele v. Ft. | 1 | 1 |
Keesee v. Meadow Heights R-II School Districtgreen1 sentence1995“An appealing party desiring review of an issue has the duty to furnish all records relating thereto, and in the absence of such there is nothing for review.” 4 Keesee v. Meadow Heights R-II School Dist., 865 S.W.2d 818, 824 (Mo.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp.
green
1 sentence2018Although apparently not previously considered in Missouri, courts from other jurisdictions have held that a preliminary injunction issued after notice to the parties and a hearing is at least prima facie evidence of probable cause. 11 See, e.g. , Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp. , 104 F.2d 105 , 107 (2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied , 308 U.S. 599 , 60 S.Ct. 131 , 84 L.Ed. 501 (1939) ("The granting of a preliminary injunction upon notice to opposing parties, even though reversed on appeal, is at least [ prima facie ] evidence of probable cause." (citations omitted) ); Burt | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Burt v. . Smith
green
2 sentences2018Although apparently not previously considered in Missouri, courts from other jurisdictions have held that a preliminary injunction issued after notice to the parties and a hearing is at least prima facie evidence of probable cause. 11 See, e.g. , Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp. , 104 F.2d 105 , 107 (2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied , 308 U.S. 599 , 60 S.Ct. 131 , 84 L.Ed. 501 (1939) ("The granting of a preliminary injunction upon notice to opposing parties, even though reversed on appeal, is at least [ prima facie ] evidence of probable cause." (citations omitted) ); Burt 2018Although apparently not previously considered in Missouri, courts from other jurisdictions have held that a preliminary injunction issued after notice to the parties and a hearing is at least prima facie evidence of probable cause. 11 See, e.g. , Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp. , 104 F.2d 105 , 107 (2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied , 308 U.S. 599 , 60 S.Ct. 131 , 84 L.Ed. 501 (1939) ("The granting of a preliminary injunction upon notice to opposing parties, even though reversed on appeal, is at least [ prima facie ] evidence of probable cause." (citations omitted) ); Burt | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Montrose Cemetery Co. v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence2018Although apparently not previously considered in Missouri, courts from other jurisdictions have held that a preliminary injunction issued after notice to the parties and a hearing is at least prima facie evidence of probable cause. 11 See, e.g. , Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp. , 104 F.2d 105 , 107 (2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied , 308 U.S. 599 , 60 S.Ct. 131 , 84 L.Ed. 501 (1939) ("The granting of a preliminary injunction upon notice to opposing parties, even though reversed on appeal, is at least [ prima facie ] evidence of probable cause." (citations omitted) ); Burt | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wales v. Jacobs
green
1 sentence2018Although apparently not previously considered in Missouri, courts from other jurisdictions have held that a preliminary injunction issued after notice to the parties and a hearing is at least prima facie evidence of probable cause. 11 See, e.g. , Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp. , 104 F.2d 105 , 107 (2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied , 308 U.S. 599 , 60 S.Ct. 131 , 84 L.Ed. 501 (1939) ("The granting of a preliminary injunction upon notice to opposing parties, even though reversed on appeal, is at least [ prima facie ] evidence of probable cause." (citations omitted) ); Burt | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State ex rel. Fischer v. Public Service Commission
green
1 sentence2010In Fischer, this Court reviewed the Commission’s ruling that “prior to the hearing that the only issue it would consider was whether or not the stipulation and agreement would be accepted or rejected, and a full and contested hearing would be held only in the event that the Commission rejected the agreement.” Id. at 41 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Artman v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts
green
1 sentence2008Although the statute does not require a contested hearing before the Board suspends or revokes a physician’s *144 license, Artman has held that due process is satisfied, “[s]o long as before a license is revoked, the physician has a meaningful hearing with notice and an effective opportunity to defend[.]” Artman, 918 S.W.2d at 251 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In re the Marriage of Morris
green
1 sentence1997Husband argues that this case is “identical” to In re Marriage of Morris, 726 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Carroll
neutral
1 sentence1992State v. Carroll, 620 S.W.2d 22 (Mo.App.1981) (relying on State ex rel. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Willard
green
1 sentence1977Although instructions allowing the jury to “disregard” the witness’s testimony have been held to be error when that term is employed alone, its use in tandem with the term “reject” was expressly approved in State v. Willard, 346 Mo. 773 , 143 S.W.2d 1046 , 1052-53 (1940). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Missouri Lead Mining & Smelting Co. v. Reinhard
green
1 sentence1909In Mo. Lead M. & S. Co. v. Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218 , the Supreme Court (Black, J.) held that “the single circumstance that this contested claim was not provided for, standing alone as it does, is not sufficient proof to warrant or justify the inference that the transaction was made to defraud creditors.” [L. c. 232.] That was a case where it appeared that the new company was organized and the property of the old turned over to it for the purpose of raising additional capital to prosecute the further development of the mine. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.