11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2014See White, 321 S.W.3d at 308 (“While a party can contest evidence by putting forth evidence to the contrary, a party also can contest evidence by cross-examination, or by pointing out internal inconsistencies in the evidence ... [a] party also may contest evidence by arguing to the trial court that the witness is not credible as apparent from the witness’s demeanor, or because of the witness’s bias or the witness’s incentive to lie.”) (internal citations omitted). 2014See White, 321 S.W.3d at 308 (“While a party can contest evidence by putting forth evidence to the contrary, a party also can contest evidence by cross-examination, or by pointing out internal inconsistencies in the evidence… [a] party also may contest evidence by arguing to the trial court that the witness is not credible as apparent from the witness's demeanor, or because of the witness's bias or the witness's incentive to lie.”) (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State of Missouri v. Gary Preston Browning, Jr.green2 sentences2022Id. 2015State v. Browning, 458 S.W.3d 418, 424-25 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (Witt, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). 3 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mignonegreen1 sentence2020State v. Mignone, 411 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Fentongreen2 sentences2010See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 114 , 106 S.Ct. 445 , 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). 2010See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 114 , 106 S.Ct. 445 , 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2006Walker v. Director of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence2006Walker v. Director of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Royal
green
1 sentence2018"Intoxication may be proven by the defendant's behavior including: loss of balance, slurred speech, lack of body coordination, and impairment of motor reflexes." State v. Royal , 277 S.W.3d 837 , 840 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). .Among other things, the police report went into detail about the field sobriety tests conducted on Driver prior to his arrest, to-wit: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the leg stand test and the walk and turn test. 2010Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). .Among other things, the police report went into detail about the field sobriety tests conducted on Driver prior to his arrest, to-wit: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the leg stand test and the walk and turn test. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Guhr v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2008While Officer Collins’ testimony was challenged on cross-examination, and the trial court was free to disbe *266 lieve his testimony, Guhr, 228 S.W.3d at 585 n. 3, Ms. Rozier did not challenge the accuracy of the videotape in recounting her appearance, responses to questions, and performance on the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
York v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2007More importantly, the trooper “admitted at trial that she improperly administered all of these tests and that her failure to do so seriously compromised their validity.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.