Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1876–2015 0 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. Byrdgreen2 sentences2001“The state may cross-examine a witness to defendant’s good reputation regarding the fact of prior arrests in order to test both the witness’ familiarity with the reputation and the stringency of the standard under which that reputation was earned.” State v. Byrd, 676 S.W.2d 494, 505 (Mo. banc 1984). 2001Furthermore, if a witness “testifies to his own (or... someone else’s) opinion of defendant’s character, then the prosecutor may test the legitimacy of the basis for that opinion by inquiring whether the witness (or the other person) is aware *878 of pertinent bad acts of defendant, including his arrest on other charges.” Id. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Creasongreen1 sentence2015“Such cross-examination ... tests, the witness’s familiarity with the reputation of the defendant and the stringency of the standard on which .that reputation was earned.” State v. Creason, 847 S.W.2d 482, 486 (Mo.App.W.D.1993). “‘[PJrosecuting officials should not be permitted in this fashionf, however,] to .convey to the jury by innuendo and insinuation purported information which they are forbidden to impart directly.’ ” Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 265 (quoting State v. Selle, 367 S.W.2d 522, 530 (Mo.1963)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sellegreen1 sentence2015“Such cross-examination ... tests, the witness’s familiarity with the reputation of the defendant and the stringency of the standard on which .that reputation was earned.” State v. Creason, 847 S.W.2d 482, 486 (Mo.App.W.D.1993). “‘[PJrosecuting officials should not be permitted in this fashionf, however,] to .convey to the jury by innuendo and insinuation purported information which they are forbidden to impart directly.’ ” Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 265 (quoting State v. Selle, 367 S.W.2d 522, 530 (Mo.1963)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sweetgreen1 sentence1993State v. Sweet, 796 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 1339 , 113 L.Ed.2d 270 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ermil Grantgreen2 sentences1990"While the Bram test has long been followed, it has not been interpreted to be applied on a strict per se basis." Tippitt v. Lockhart, 859 F.2d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308, 316 (8th Cir.1980). 1990“While the Bram test has long been followed, it has not been interpreted to be applied on a strict per se basis.” Tippitt v. Lockhart, 859 F.2d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308, 316 (8th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Roosevelt Tippitt v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1990"While the Bram test has long been followed, it has not been interpreted to be applied on a strict per se basis." Tippitt v. Lockhart, 859 F.2d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308, 316 (8th Cir.1980). 1990“While the Bram test has long been followed, it has not been interpreted to be applied on a strict per se basis.” Tippitt v. Lockhart, 859 F.2d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Grant, 622 F.2d 308, 316 (8th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1984State v. Smith, 655 S.W.2d 745, 749 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Renihan v. . Dennin
green
2 sentences1914The stringency with which the rule excluding privileged communications is applied by this court is illustrated in the recent case of Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y. 573 , but there is no principle of authority for holding, after a consent to publish such information has been properly given, and the evil, if any, consummated, that the privileged person can again raise the objection. 1906The stringency with which the rule excluding privileged communications is applied by this court is illustrated in the recent case of Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y. 573 , but there is no principle or authority for holding, after a consent to publish such information has been properly given, and the evil, if any, consummated, that the privileged person can again raise the objection. | 2 | 1906–1914 |
State v. Siems
green
1 sentence2015“Such cross-examination ... tests, the witness’s familiarity with the reputation of the defendant and the stringency of the standard on which .that reputation was earned.” State v. Creason, 847 S.W.2d 482, 486 (Mo.App.W.D.1993). “‘[PJrosecuting officials should not be permitted in this fashionf, however,] to .convey to the jury by innuendo and insinuation purported information which they are forbidden to impart directly.’ ” Siems, 535 S.W.2d at 265 (quoting State v. Selle, 367 S.W.2d 522, 530 (Mo.1963)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Yale v. Gwinits & Casler
neutral
1 sentence1913Pr. 9 ; Yale v. Gwinits, 4 How. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. A. A. Nelson & Wife
neutral
1 sentence1909As to the question of authority of agents of the railroad company to enter into a contract with plaintiff for reservation of space in defendant’s sleeping car, we concede the general rule that the fact of the existence of an agency cannot be established by the acts and declarations of the agent, but in modern times, the stringency of this rule has been greatly relaxed in its application to corporations which can transact business only through agents. [Pullman Co. v. Nelson, 54 S. W. 624 .] In the case in hand, we do not find it necessary to abate the ancient rigor of the rule in order to find | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Lawless v. Hackett
neutral
1 sentence1876It is to be observed that this provision, which was adopted in New York in 1848, was a material relaxation of the stringency of the rule prescribed by the act of 1818,. construed by the case of Lawless v. Hackett, 16 Johns. 149 . | 1 | 1876–1876 |
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.