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 1928–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Mayfield v. City of Joplingreen2 sentences1994Mayfield v. City of Joplin, 485 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Mo.App.1972)). 1991Mayfield v. City of Joplin, 485 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Mo.App.1972): A point relied on should advise the court (and the opposing party) of “the way in which the trial court incorrectly applied [controlling] principles [of law] or misconstrued the facts.” Appellants’ fourth point fails to satisfy this requirement. | 2 | 2 |
Montesano v. Jamesgreen2 sentences1994In Montesano v. James, 655 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Mo.App.1983), the court said, "It is not enough for the point, as here, via conclusions of claimed error to simply say the trial court was wrong without alluding to some evidence or testimony which gives support to such conclusions." Plaintiff's second and third points are afflicted with the same problems. 1994In Montesano v. James, 655 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Mo.App.1983), the court said, “It is not enough for the point, as here, via conclusions of claimed error to simply say the trial court was wrong without alluding to some evidence or testimony which gives support to such conclusions.” Plaintiffs second and third points are afflicted with the same problems. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Patrickgreen2 sentences1995For another articulation of the wherein requirement, see Estate of Goslee, 807 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.App.1991), where we observed that the wherein portion of a point relied on should advise the court and the opposing party of the way in which the trial court misapplied controlling principles of law or misconstrued the facts. 1995For another articulation of the wherein requirement, see Estate of Goslee, 807 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.App.1991), where we observed that the wherein portion of a point relied on should advise the court and the opposing party of the way in which the trial court misapplied controlling principles of law or misconstrued the facts. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thummel v. King
green
2 sentences1994“This requirement essentially contemplates a statement which ordinarily will closely approximate what appellant believes should have been the trial court’s conclusion of law on the point being addressed,” Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 685 , or, more succinctly, “the rule of law ... the court should have applied_” Id. at 686 . (3) The wherein requirement may be satisfied by stating “the testimony or evidence [that] gives rise to the ruling for which appellant contends,” Id. at 685 , or “‘the way in which the trial court incorrectly applied [controlling] principles [of law] or misconstrued the facts.’” 1994“This requirement essentially contemplates a statement which ordinarily will closely approximate what appellant believes should have been the trial court’s conclusion of law on the point being addressed,” Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 685 , or, more succinctly, “the rule of law ... the court should have applied_” Id. at 686 . (3) The wherein requirement may be satisfied by stating “the testimony or evidence [that] gives rise to the ruling for which appellant contends,” Id. at 685 , or “‘the way in which the trial court incorrectly applied [controlling] principles [of law] or misconstrued the facts.’” | 3 | 1991–1997 |
Midwest Materials Co. v. Village Development Co.
green
1 sentence1991Compliance with Rule 84.04(d) is discussed at length in Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo.banc 1978), Midwest Materials Co. v. Village Development Co., 806 S.W.2d 477 , 483 n. 1 (Mo.App.1991), and numerous other Missouri appellate court opinions. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Willard
green
1 sentence1952It appears that the last case of this court wherein an instruction of this character was extensively discussed is State v. Willard, supra [ 346 Mo. 773 , 142 S.W.2d 1052 ], wherein Judge Ellison considered and reviewed the rulings and the reasoning in a multitude of previous cases. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Hart v. Gardner
green
1 sentence1929In 23 Corpus Juris, 766, it is said: "The inadequacy of the bid at the execution sale cannot be invoked to destroy the title of a remote purchasee on the ground that it per se put him on notice." The identical question was presented to the Supreme Court of Mississippi for decision in Hart v. Gardner, 81 Miss. 650 , 656, wherein that court announced: "We cannot subscribe to the doctrine advanced that, in an attack like this on the title of a remote vendee, the inadequacy of the bid at execution sale can be invoked to destroy his title on the ground that this, per se, put him on notice." In 35 C | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Lyman v. Dale
green
1 sentence1928We are cited to Steffen v. Mayer, 96 Mo. l. c. 423, and Lyman v. Dale, 262 Mo. 353 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.