11 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Milliken v. Meyergreen1 sentence2021Procedural due process “requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. (citing Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Monniggreen1 sentence2021See In re Monnig, 638 S.W.2d 782, 785-86 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982); section 211.447.6, RSMo. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Potashnickgreen2 sentences2021Point I In their first point, Parents claim that section 475.030.4(2), RSMo, violates due process protections guaranteed by the United States and Missouri Constitutions arguing that “the probate 8 This appeal was originally filed with the Missouri Supreme Court before being ordered transferred on the Supreme Court’s own motion to this Court, “where jurisdiction is vested.” 6 code fails to adequately provide for the protection of the fundamental relationship between parent and child[.]” “The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 10 of the Missouri Constitution 2021Procedural due process “requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. (citing Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Stephen M. Gunther Revocable Livinggreen1 sentence2019See In re Stephen, 350 S.W.3d at 45 (citing ITT Commercial Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Ellsworth v. Wortheygreen2 sentences2019See Ellsworth v. Worthey, 612 S.W.2d 396, 401 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981) (internal citation omitted) (noting the non-moving party must present all material evidence and legal theories in his response to a summary-judgment motion and may not seek to set aside summary judgment due to a matter not earlier presented). 2019See Ellsworth, 612 S.W.2d at 401 (noting that all material evidence must be presented in response to a summary-judgment motion). | 1 | 1 |
Ravenscroft v. Ravenscroftgreen1 sentence1984Ravenscroft v. Ravenscroft, 585 S.W.2d 270, 275 (Mo.App.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 |
|---|---|---|
Herndon v. Tuhey
green
2 sentences2000Parents claim under this statute, as analyzed by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Herndon v. Tuhey, 857 S.W.2d 203 (Mo. banc 1993), the visitation awarded Grandparents exceeded the statute’s limitations. 2000At trial, Parents raised the issue of the constitutionality of section 452.402 in a motion to dismiss the action, but the trial court denied Parents' motion, relying on the Missouri Supreme Court decision in Herndon v. Tuhey, 857 S.W.2d 203 (Mo. banc 1993). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Stuart v. Ford
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In the Interest of: J.T.S. Juvenile Officer v. H.J.S. (Mother)
green
1 sentence2016In response to Parents’ second point on appeal, Respondent contends, among other things, that Parents’ challenge to the adequacy of the trial court’s findings “should be denied as being moot.” Respondent states that “[t]o remand these .cases at this time will accomplish nothing as' a practical manner as ultimately the final disposition in these cases has been in [Parents’] favor as [Children] have been returned to [Parents] and the cases closed.” Respondent’s appendix'includes five motions with orders terminating the trial court’s jurisdiction over Children; In their reply brief, Parents state | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Neosho R-V School District v. McGee
green
1 sentence2010Neosho, 979 S.W.2d at 540 ; see also § 162.962 (specifying procedures for judicial review of decisions of special education hearing panels). *214 Here, the parties dispute whether the School District and Parents entered into a binding settlement agreement resolving Parents’ claim that their son was not receiving the educational services to which he was statutorily entitled. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Troxel v. Granville
green
2 sentences2001Although Parents urge that the grandparent visitation statute is unconstitutional in a number of respects in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), we note that the trial court has not yet ruled on Parents’ motion to dismiss on these grounds. 2001Although Parents urge that the grandparent visitation statute is unconstitutional in a number of respects in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), we note that the trial court has not yet ruled on Parents’ motion to dismiss on these grounds. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Simpson v. Buck
green
1 sentence2000As this court noted in Simpson , the particular facts of a case dictate the frequency with which visitation should be awarded. “[0]ther facts may well require more frequent or flexible terms of visitation.” Simpson, 971 S.W.2d at 859 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lambert v. Schaefer
green
1 sentence1996While the firefighter’s rule “may provide a shield of liability for defendants in cases involving ordinary negligence, it is not a license to act with impunity or without regard for the safety officer’s well-being.” Lambert, 839 S.W.2d at 29 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Cheney
green
1 sentence1982That contention iterates the rationales of State v. Cheney, 305 S.W.2d 892 (Mo.App. 1957), State v. Pilkinton, 310 S.W.2d 304 (Mo.App.1958) and State v. Davis, 598 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App.1980) that in a criminal prosecution against the parents for violation of § 167.031, the information must allege and the evidence must prove that the accused parents not only failed to enroll the children in a school but also failed to provide an equivalent home instruction as essential elements of the integral offense. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Pilkinton
green
1 sentence1982That contention iterates the rationales of State v. Cheney, 305 S.W.2d 892 (Mo.App. 1957), State v. Pilkinton, 310 S.W.2d 304 (Mo.App.1958) and State v. Davis, 598 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App.1980) that in a criminal prosecution against the parents for violation of § 167.031, the information must allege and the evidence must prove that the accused parents not only failed to enroll the children in a school but also failed to provide an equivalent home instruction as essential elements of the integral offense. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence1982That contention iterates the rationales of State v. Cheney, 305 S.W.2d 892 (Mo.App. 1957), State v. Pilkinton, 310 S.W.2d 304 (Mo.App.1958) and State v. Davis, 598 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App.1980) that in a criminal prosecution against the parents for violation of § 167.031, the information must allege and the evidence must prove that the accused parents not only failed to enroll the children in a school but also failed to provide an equivalent home instruction as essential elements of the integral offense. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.