11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2024 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 v. Boldengreen2 sentences2014Accordingly, we conclude that Defendant has abandoned this argument and we decline to review it. 6 Regarding Instruction No. 12‟s failure to include reference to multiple assailants, we believe, as the State asserts, that State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d at 802 , controls the resolution of this claim. 2014Regarding Instruction No. 12’s failure to include reference to multiple assailants, we believe, as the State asserts, that State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d at 802, controls the resolution of this claim. | 1 | 2 |
Oberreiter v. Fullbright Truckinggreen1 sentence2024Cf. Oberreiter v. Fullbright Trucking, 24 S.W.3d 727, 729 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (holding a Commission’s decision concluding a workers’ compensation claim should be dismissed without prejudice is not a final award because such a decision “does not dispose of the entire controversy between the parties and has not resulted in a complete resolution of th[e] claim”). | 1 | 1 |
Rebecca J. Davison v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.green1 sentence2021See Davison v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., 449 S.W.3d 81 , 85 n.4 (Mo.App. 2014) (“Obiter dicta, by definition, is a gratuitous opinion. | 1 | 1 |
Rachal Laut, f/k/a Rachal Govro, and John M. Soellner v. City of Arnoldgreen1 sentence2020See Laut II, 491 S.W.3d at 195 ; Laut I, 417 S.W.3d at 323 . | 1 | 1 |
STATE EX REL. SCROGGINS v. Kellogggreen1 sentence2015Scroggins v. Kellogg, 335 S.W.3d 38, 43 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (the authority granted a circuit court to afford credit for time spent on probation is "to be exercised, if at all, at the time of a probation revocation proceeding resulting in the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment”). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Jet Envelope, Inc.green1 sentence2000Martin v. Jet Envelope, Inc., 943 S.W.2d 321, 322 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Laut v. City of Arnold
green
1 sentence2020See Laut II, 491 S.W.3d at 195 ; Laut I, 417 S.W.3d at 323 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Douglas Cosby v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
green
1 sentence2020We reverse the Commission’s decision because, consistent with the Eastern and Western Districts of this Court, we believe the Supreme Court of Missouri resolved the conflict between subsections 2 and 3 of section 287.220 in Cosby v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, 579 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. banc 2019), and that resolution requires the application of subsection 2 to Claimant’s claim rather than subsection 3. 1 1 Claimant also raises a second point on appeal in which Claimant asserts that the Commission “failed to reconcile the conflicting language” in other s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Donaldson v. Crawford
green
1 sentence2015Regardless of whether Barnes's time in custody on the Greene and Howell County sentences was related to the Holt County offense, he was not entitled to jail-time credit because he fell within the purview of section 559.100, in that he was on probation for the Holt County offense at the time he was in custody. 3 .The Missouri Supreme Court declined to address the inmate's argument that the time in custody was related to the offense for which he was seeking credit: "Because of the Court's resolution of the exception provided by section 558.031, it is not' necessary to determine whether the offen | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Manard v. Williams
green
1 sentence2014"Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial court to have judged the credibility of witnesses." Manard, 952 S.W.2d at 389 . 8 The following additional facts are pertinent to the resolution of this claim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State Ex Rel. Leonardi v. Sherry
green
1 sentence2010Leonardi, 137 S.W.3d at 473 . 5 The preliminary writ of prohibition is made permanent. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bride v. City of Slater
green
2 sentences1959Respondent relies particularly upon Bride v. City of Slater, supra, 263 S.W.2d 22 and Donovan v. Kansas City, 352 Mo. 430 , 175 S.W.2d 874 , 179 S.W.2d 108 . 1959Respondent relies particularly upon Bride v. City of Slater, supra, 263 S.W.2d 22 and Donovan v. Kansas City, 352 Mo. 430 , 175 S.W.2d 874 , 179 S.W.2d 108 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Donovan v. Kansas City
green
2 sentences1959Respondent relies particularly upon Bride v. City of Slater, supra, 263 S.W.2d 22 and Donovan v. Kansas City, 352 Mo. 430 , 175 S.W.2d 874 , 179 S.W.2d 108 . 1959Respondent relies particularly upon Bride v. City of Slater, supra, 263 S.W.2d 22 and Donovan v. Kansas City, 352 Mo. 430 , 175 S.W.2d 874 , 179 S.W.2d 108 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.