81 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1867–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. Morris Companygreen2 sentences1965See Banks v. Morris & Co., 302 Mo. 254 , 257 S.W. 482 (2), where the Supreme Court pronounced the now venerable formula: “ * * * (1) Plaintiff was in a position of peril; (2) defendant had notice thereof (if it was the duty of defendant to have been on the lookout, constructive notice suffices); (3) defendant after receiving such notice had the present ability, with the means at hand, to have averted the impending injury without injury to himself or others; (4) he failed to exercise ordinary care to avert such impending injury; and (5) by reason thereof plaintiff was injured. * * * ” We now se 1965See Banks v. Morris & Co., 302 Mo. 254 , 257 S.W. 482 (2), where the Supreme Court pronounced the now venerable formula: “ * * * (1) Plaintiff was in a position of peril; (2) defendant had notice thereof (if it was the duty of defendant to have been on the lookout, constructive notice suffices); (3) defendant after receiving such notice had the present ability, with the means at hand, to have averted the impending injury without injury to himself or others; (4) he failed to exercise ordinary care to avert such impending injury; and (5) by reason thereof plaintiff was injured. * * * ” We now se | 2 | 3 |
State v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2019Co., 413 S.W.3d 649 , 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013); see also State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (granting plain- error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a pattern MAI-CR instruction). [llustratively, we have exercised our discretion to provide plain-error review where the appellant has merely failed to set forth the refused instruction duplicatively in both the appendix and in the argument portion of the brief. 1993See State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 812, n. 1 (Mo.App.1990); 6 State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358-59 [6] (Mo.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gideongreen2 sentences1980See also State v. Long, 539 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.App.1976) wherein the court concluded, at 595: “Concerning the refused instruction on stealing from a person, it has long been held that the court need not instruct on such offense if the evidence is sufficient to make a submissible case on the charge of first degree robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, [citing] State v. Gideon, 453 S.W.2d 938, 940 [10] (Mo.1970); State v. Keeney, 425 S.W.2d 85, 89 [4] (Mo.1968). 1976See State v. Gideon, 453 S.W.2d 938, 940 [10] (Mo.1970); State v. Keeney, 425 S.W.2d 85, 89 [4] (Mo.1968). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Keeneygreen2 sentences1980See also State v. Long, 539 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.App.1976) wherein the court concluded, at 595: “Concerning the refused instruction on stealing from a person, it has long been held that the court need not instruct on such offense if the evidence is sufficient to make a submissible case on the charge of first degree robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, [citing] State v. Gideon, 453 S.W.2d 938, 940 [10] (Mo.1970); State v. Keeney, 425 S.W.2d 85, 89 [4] (Mo.1968). 1976See State v. Gideon, 453 S.W.2d 938, 940 [10] (Mo.1970); State v. Keeney, 425 S.W.2d 85, 89 [4] (Mo.1968). | 2 | 2 |
Daniel v. Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.green2 sentences2019Daniel v. Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc. , 103 S.W.3d 302 , 311 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (internal citation omitted). 2019Daniel v. Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 103 S.W.3d 302, 311 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Witherspoon v. Guttierezgreen1 sentence2016Witherspoon, 327 S.W.2d at 875, 877 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Bruce Piercegreen1 sentence2015In regard to the homicide charge, the trial court instructed the jury on murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and voluntary manslaughter.2 The trial court refused Defendant's request to also include an instruction on involuntary manslaughter, believing that the refused instruction was "not required by the Supreme Court decisions as we know them at this time." Analysis Point I – Involuntary Manslaughter Instruction Defendant claims the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter because involuntary manslaughter "is a le | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haleygreen1 sentence2008It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to “refuse to submit additional cautionary instructions to the jury concerning eyewitnesses.” State v. Haley, 73 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Albanesegreen1 sentence2001The State based this argument on State v. Albanese, 920 S.W.2d 917, 925 (Mo.App.1996), State v. Isom, 906 S.W.2d 870, 873 (Mo.App.1995) and State v. Beeler, WD 55460, slip op., 1999 WL 506234 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Isomgreen1 sentence2001The State based this argument on State v. Albanese, 920 S.W.2d 917, 925 (Mo.App.1996), State v. Isom, 906 S.W.2d 870, 873 (Mo.App.1995) and State v. Beeler, WD 55460, slip op., 1999 WL 506234 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Palermogreen1 sentence2000Hughes v. Palermo, 911 S.W.2d 673, 674 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hopsongreen1 sentence1996Finally, as noted in State v. Hopson, 891 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Mo.App.1995), a failure to include the refused instruction in the brief does not preclude review of a claim of instructional error where the refused instruction is a pattern instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nauckegreen2 sentences1996In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. . 1996NOTES [1] In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. [2] Neither party raises the issue whether the trial court was bound by the settlement agreement in apportioning damages, and we therefore do not reach that issue. | 1 | 1 |
Meeker v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence1993Co., 766 S.W.2d 733, 743 (Mo.App.1989), as support for this definition of “material.” The instruction submitted in Meeker is the same as Columbia’s refused instruction. 2 However, we find Instruction No. 7 is the correct statement of the law as provided in this court’s decision in Crewse v. Shelter Mut. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence1993State v. Edwards, 650 S.W.2d 655, 659 [4] (Mo.App.1983); Rule 30.06(e). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Culkingreen1 sentence1993See State v. Culkin, 791 S.W.2d 803, 812, n. 1 (Mo.App.1990); 6 State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358-59 [6] (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kitsongreen1 sentence1992The issue was therefore not properly preserved for appeal, State v. Kitson, 817 S.W.2d 594, 601 (Mo.App.1991), and our review is limited to determining whether *435 plain error resulted. | 1 | 1 |
| Dempsey v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tennis v. General Motors Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Longgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bethelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Arnallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Langgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sandersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Schultengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Edmondsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rudmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Holtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nolangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ybarragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Coleman v. Jackson Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| City Water Company v. Huntergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Shippgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Andrew v. Linebaughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1938(Mo.), 6 S.W.2d 954 , the defendant requested and the court refused an instruction in part as follows: "You are instructed that the persons in charge of said engine had the right to assume and believe, if they saw said Clark approaching the track on which the engine was moving, that he would stop before he reached a place where he would be in danger of being struck, or, if they saw said Clark on said track in front of said engine, they had the right to assume and believe that he *Page 1129 would step off the track and into a place of safety; and the servants in charge of said engine were not o 1936Co., 319 Mo. 865 , 6 S. W. (2d) 954 , loc. cit. 960. [See, also, Banks v. Morris & Co., 302 Mo. 254 , 257 S. W. 482 .] It follows that for the refusal of defendant’s Instruction No. 8 the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded, and, it is so ordered. | 2 | 1936–1938 |
Burbridge v. Union Pacific Railroad
green
1 sentence2019Co., 413 S.W.3d 649 , 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013); see also State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (granting plain- error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a pattern MAI-CR instruction). [llustratively, we have exercised our discretion to provide plain-error review where the appellant has merely failed to set forth the refused instruction duplicatively in both the appendix and in the argument portion of the brief. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Bush
green
1 sentence2016Note 3 of the Notes on Use following MAI-CR 3d 302.01 (2014) states, “Except as may be specifically provided for elsewhere in MAI-CR, no other or additional instruction may be given on the believability of witnesses, or the effect, weight, or value of their testimony.” See Bush, 372 S.W.3d at 70-71 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Roberts
green
1 sentence2015In Roberts, 2015 WL 4627393 at *2 , and Randle, 2015 WL 4627381 at *2, our supreme court stated: 2 As to voluntary manslaughter, the trial court also instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of duress. 3 Section 556.046.3, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2001, provides that a trial court must "instruct the jury with respect to a particular included offense only if there is a basis in the evidence for acquitting the defendant of the immediately higher included offense and there is a basis in the evidence for convicting the defendant of that particular included offense." The state concedes that the first o | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Beeler
green
1 sentence2001The cases presented by the State were overruled a few months later by the Supreme Court, however, in State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. banc 2000), when the Supreme Court granted transfer from this court. 3 Thus, the basis upon which the trial court refused the instruction in this case was incorrect in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Beeler. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jackson v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1998Jackson, 406 U.S. at 740 , 92 S.Ct. at 1859 . *445 The Missouri legislature also has been cognizant of the constitutional concerns related to incompetent defendants. 1998Jackson, 406 U.S. at 740 , 92 S.Ct. at 1859 . *445 The Missouri legislature also has been cognizant of the constitutional concerns related to incompetent defendants. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Powell v. United States
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. . 1996NOTES [1] In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. [2] Neither party raises the issue whether the trial court was bound by the settlement agreement in apportioning damages, and we therefore do not reach that issue. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Van Der Jagt v. SIB International Bancorp Inc.
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. . 1996NOTES [1] In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. [2] Neither party raises the issue whether the trial court was bound by the settlement agreement in apportioning damages, and we therefore do not reach that issue. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ragsdale v. Richland County Detention Center
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. . 1996NOTES [1] In State v. Naucke, 829 S.W.2d 445, 459-60 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 960 , 113 S.Ct. 427 , 121 L.Ed.2d 348 (1992), the court refused to rule on this very issue because neither party had objected to replaying the videotaped deposition testimony to the jury. [2] Neither party raises the issue whether the trial court was bound by the settlement agreement in apportioning damages, and we therefore do not reach that issue. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Samland v. J. White Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 97 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence1995State v. Smith, 850 S.W.2d 934 (Mo.App.1993) [16]. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ellinwood v. Estate of Lyons
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991The trial court refused the instruction and explicitly cautioned the defendants about any suggestion of a “state of the art” argument, pointing to our opinion in Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. banc 1984). 1991The trial court refused the instruction and explicitly cautioned the defendants about any suggestion of a "state of the art" argument, pointing to our opinion in Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. banc 1984). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Gottlieb v. Szajnfeld green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Mannon green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Gray green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Stuebinger green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Higgins v. Paul Hardeman, Inc. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| State v. Briggs green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Boquist v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Ross green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| State v. Blevins green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| State v. Engberg green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Seehorn v. Hall neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Land green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Morris v. Continental Casualty Co. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Pollard v. General Elevator Engineering Company green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Edwards v. Leopoldi green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Roberts v. Ferguson neutral | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Loston green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| State v. Tallie green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| State v. Cox green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Igoe v. Slaton Block Company neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Liebow v. Jones Store Company green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Hughes v. Rader neutral | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Edwards v. Woods. green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| State v. Swain green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Bondurant v. State neutral | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| State v. Warren green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.