11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 2 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 Ex Rel. Yarber v. McHenrygreen2 sentences2023“The relevant inquiry is not whether the agency in fact held a contested case hearing, but whether it should have done so.” Id. 2009Yarber v. McHenry, 915 S.W.2d 325, 328 (Mo. banc 1995), said that "this language was used to indicate that certain procedural advantages provided to the agency by the MAPA may be lost by the agency if it failed to follow contested case procedures.” The Yarber court noted that the focus should not be on "whether the agency in fact held a contested case hearing, but whether it should have done so.” Id. | 4 | 5 |
Sapp v. City of St. Louisgreen2 sentences2023Id. at 164 (citations omitted). 2021Id. | 1 | 2 |
PHYSICIAN 3491 v. North Kansas Citygreen1 sentence2023Id. at 479 (citations omitted); see also Yarber, 915 S.W.2d at 328 (public high school student who was denied a full semester of academic credit for disciplinary reasons was entitled to contested-case hearing). “[T]he fundamental rationale of the Supreme Court in both Byrd and Yarber is that a property interest created by 9 state law required a hearing and thereby made the contested case provisions . . . applicable.” Physician No. 3491 v. No. Kansas City, 51 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Caldwell Countygreen1 sentence2017See Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Mo. banc 2006); McCoy v. Caldwell Co., 145 S.W.3d 427, 428-29 (Mo. banc 2004); Sanders v. City of Columbia, 481 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Rob Sanders v. City of Columbia, Missourigreen1 sentence2017See Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Mo. banc 2006); McCoy v. Caldwell Co., 145 S.W.3d 427, 428-29 (Mo. banc 2004); Sanders v. City of Columbia, 481 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Kunzie v. City of Olivettegreen1 sentence2017See Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Mo. banc 2006); McCoy v. Caldwell Co., 145 S.W.3d 427, 428-29 (Mo. banc 2004); Sanders v. City of Columbia, 481 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Cade v. State, Department of Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2009See also Cade v. State, 990 S.W.2d 32 , 37 n. 4 (Mo.App.1999). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weber v. Firemen's Retirement System
green
2 sentences2023Similarly, in Weber, 872 S.W.2d 477 , the Court held that a firefighter who was injured on the job was entitled to a contested-case hearing before being denied disability retirement benefits, because the firefighter had a constitutionally protected property interest in receiving such benefits: Generally, the taking of a property right without notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the due process clauses of the United States and Missouri Constitutions. 2007Id. | 3 | 2001–2023 |
Krentz v. Robertson Fire Protection District
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Knapp v. Junior College District of St. Louis County
green
2 sentences1995Louis County, 879 S.W.2d 588 (Mo.App.1994), the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, held a suspended college student who unquestionably possessed a property right to a semester’s education was not entitled to a contested case hearing. 1995Louis County, 879 S.W.2d 588 (Mo.App.1994), the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, held a suspended college student who unquestionably possessed a property right to a semester's education was not entitled to a contested case hearing. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State Ex Rel. Leggett v. Jensen
green
2 sentences1995Leggett v. Jensen, 318 S.W.2d 353 (Mo. banc 1958), contends that due process does not require a contested case hearing for all deprivations of life, liberty, or property rights. 1995Leggett v. Jensen, 318 S.W.2d 353 (Mo. banc 1958), contends that due process does not require a contested case hearing for all deprivations of life, liberty, or property rights. *329 Implicit in Leggett, according to the school district, is the notion that a de minimus penalty would not require a contested case hearing. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.