12 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1950–2025 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. Hughesgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Cummings, 686 S.W.3d 709 , 717 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (“Cummings cannot transform his evidentiary claim into a claim of instructional error.”); State v. Hughes, 84 S.W.3d 176, 180 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (declining to reframe the appellant’s instructional challenge on appeal from one directed at the sufficiency of the evidence to one directed at the form of the instruction). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Denford Jacksongreen1 sentence2015The fact-finder’s prerogative to “[d]isbeliev[e] all consistent evidence presented at trial is not the same as having a basis in the evidence to support an instruction.” State v. Pierce, 433 S.W.3d 424, 448 (Mo. banc 2014) (Draper, J., dissenting) (addressing the requirement to instruct the jury on all “nested” lesser-included offenses). | 1 | 1 |
Hartenbach v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1988Hartenbach v. Johnson, 628 S.W.2d 684, 688 (Mo.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
George v. Gross & Janes Co.green1 sentence1984In considering the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction, this court is bound by the following rule: “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the submission of a contributory negligence instruction, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, giving it the benefit of all favorable inferences therefrom, and disregard plaintiffs evidence unless it tends to support the giving of the instruction.” George v. Gross and Janes Co., 634 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Mo.App.1982); Welch v. Hyatt, 578 S.W.2d 905, 912 (Mo. banc 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Welch v. Hyattgreen1 sentence1984In considering the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction, this court is bound by the following rule: “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the submission of a contributory negligence instruction, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, giving it the benefit of all favorable inferences therefrom, and disregard plaintiffs evidence unless it tends to support the giving of the instruction.” George v. Gross and Janes Co., 634 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Mo.App.1982); Welch v. Hyatt, 578 S.W.2d 905, 912 (Mo. banc 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. 1988In Nakata v. Platte County R-3 School Dist., 750 S.W.2d 669 (Mo.App.1988) [7], the court held that the waiver discussed in Fowler relates to deviations from MAI, not to insufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction. | 2 | 1988–2007 |
Buatte v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction, the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the submission of the instruction. 2 Id. 2009In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction, the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the submission of the instruction. [2] Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hayes v. Dunn
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 164 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gibson v. Brewer
green
1 sentence2001This is a case of first impression evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a claim for intentional failure to supervise clergy as established by Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Schisler v. Rotex Punch Co. Inc.
green
1 sentence1991She cites cases such as Schisler v. Rotex Punch Co., Inc., 746 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.App.1988) and Reichert v. Western & Southern Life Ins. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Linscomb v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc
green
1 sentence1990Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho
neutral
2 sentences1950White v. United Railways Co., 250 Mo. 476, 482 , 157 S.W. 593, 596 ; Gloyd v. Franck, 248 Mo. 468, 476 , 154 S.W. 744, 746 ; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498, 508 , 38 S.W. 89, 90 ; Rankin v. Gaugh, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 640 ; Mayger v. Carlander, Mo. App., 261 S.W. 692 , 693; Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Ins. 1950White v. United Railways Co., 250 Mo. 476, 482 , 157 S.W. 593, 596 ; Gloyd v. Franck, 248 Mo. 468, 476 , 154 S.W. 744, 746 ; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498, 508 , 38 S.W. 89, 90 ; Rankin v. Gaugh, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 640 ; Mayger v. Carlander, Mo. App., 261 S.W. 692 , 693; Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Ins. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Gloyd v. Franck
green
2 sentences1950White v. United Railways Co., 250 Mo. 476, 482 , 157 S.W. 593, 596 ; Gloyd v. Franck, 248 Mo. 468, 476 , 154 S.W. 744, 746 ; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498, 508 , 38 S.W. 89, 90 ; Rankin v. Gaugh, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 640 ; Mayger v. Carlander, Mo. App., 261 S.W. 692 , 693; Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Ins. 1950White v. United Railways Co., 250 Mo. 476, 482 , 157 S.W. 593, 596 ; Gloyd v. Franck, 248 Mo. 468, 476 , 154 S.W. 744, 746 ; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498, 508 , 38 S.W. 89, 90 ; Rankin v. Gaugh, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 640 ; Mayger v. Carlander, Mo. App., 261 S.W. 692 , 693; Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Ins. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
White v. United Railways Co.
green
2 sentences1950White v. United Railways Co., 250 Mo. 476, 482 , 157 S.W. 593, 596 ; Gloyd v. Franck, 248 Mo. 468, 476 , 154 S.W. 744, 746 ; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498, 508 , 38 S.W. 89, 90 ; Rankin v. Gaugh, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 640 ; Mayger v. Carlander, Mo. App., 261 S.W. 692 , 693; Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Ins. 1950White v. United Railways Co., 250 Mo. 476, 482 , 157 S.W. 593, 596 ; Gloyd v. Franck, 248 Mo. 468, 476 , 154 S.W. 744, 746 ; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498, 508 , 38 S.W. 89, 90 ; Rankin v. Gaugh, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 640 ; Mayger v. Carlander, Mo. App., 261 S.W. 692 , 693; Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Ins. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.