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.
11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eclipse Financial v. Gergsgreen1 sentence2013Indeed, even when a custody claim is properly raised in a paternity petition, Section 210.841.3 “does not independently authorize the grant of relief beyond a determination of paternity; it simply specifies what may be included in a judgment when the UPA action is joined with other actions.” DeWitt v. Lechuga, 393 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo.App.2013). 6 Just as Section 210.841.3 does not provide independent statutory authority for the court to grant relief on issues of custody, visitation, and support when those issues are raised in a paternity action, the statute does not automatically make custody, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schnickgreen1 sentence1993In State v. Schnick, 819 S.W.2d 330, 334 (Mo. banc 1991), the court dealt with a hospitalized defendant who claimed that because he was hospitalized, he was deprived of his freedom at the time he made statements to the deputy sheriff prior to the Miranda warning. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence1990This Court recognizes, as did the, eastern district in Self v. State, 774 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Mo.App.1989), that the language of 29.‘15(a) and (b), indirectly creates an ambiguity regarding the continued application of the actual custody requirement established in Lalla . | 1 | 1 |
Livingston v. V.L.D.green1 sentence1985In the Interest of D.R.W., 663 S.W.2d 426, 427 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
In re Trapp Childrengreen2 sentences1980This statement, based on ambiguous testimony given in the subsequent termination proceedings, is insufficient to show that the juvenile court had no evidence to support a finding of ability to pay in the initial custody hearing, especially in the light of the fact that “Mr. Trapp deliberately avoided giving information about his employment to avoid garnishment.” Id. at 493 . . 1980I do not agree with footnote 8 of the principal opinion that the statement appearing in In re Trapp, 528 S.W.2d 489, 492 (Mo.App.1975), was based upon ambiguous testimony or is insufficient to show that the juvenile court had no evidence to support a finding of ability to pay in the initial custody hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilkinson v. DeClue
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Stansbury v. California
green
2 sentences2018While the subjective beliefs of the investigating officers is generally irrelevant to whether a suspect is in custody, Schneider , 483 S.W.3d at 501 , those beliefs are relevant to how a reasonable person would interpret them in the custody analysis, Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 325 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 . 2018While the subjective beliefs of the investigating officers is generally irrelevant to whether a suspect is in custody, Schneider , 483 S.W.3d at 501 , those beliefs are relevant to how a reasonable person would interpret them in the custody analysis, Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 325 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Schneider
green
1 sentence2018While the subjective beliefs of the investigating officers is generally irrelevant to whether a suspect is in custody, Schneider , 483 S.W.3d at 501 , those beliefs are relevant to how a reasonable person would interpret them in the custody analysis, Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 325 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Seaman v. Seaman
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 894-96 . 5 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences1993Id., 415 N.W.2d at 201 . 9 . 1993Id., 415 N.W.2d at 201 . 9 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Duncan v. Pitts
green
1 sentence1987In re Duncan, 365 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. banc 1963), clearly holds that such a third person may challenge the custody claim of the petitioning natural parent on the ground of his unfitness for custody. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
In Interest of B----M----P
green
1 sentence1987Both Lassiter and B.M.P., supra, suggest that the circumstances of a particular case hold great weight in determining whether an indigent parent was unjustly denied the right to counsel in termination of parent rights proceedings. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.