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 1889–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frein v. Freingreen2 sentences2025State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 422 (Mo. banc 2013)). “‘By attacking the credibility of the state’s witnesses defense counsel invited a response from the state.’” State v. Minner, 311 S.W.3d 313, 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting State v. Castillo, 853 S.W.2d 381, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)). 2010“By attacking the credibility of the state’s witnesses defense counsel invited a response from the state.” State v. Castillo, 853 S.W.2d 381, 386 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. McFaddengreen1 sentence2025State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 422 (Mo. banc 2013)). “‘By attacking the credibility of the state’s witnesses defense counsel invited a response from the state.’” State v. Minner, 311 S.W.3d 313, 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting State v. Castillo, 853 S.W.2d 381, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Minnergreen1 sentence2025State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 422 (Mo. banc 2013)). “‘By attacking the credibility of the state’s witnesses defense counsel invited a response from the state.’” State v. Minner, 311 S.W.3d 313, 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting State v. Castillo, 853 S.W.2d 381, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Timothy T. McClendongreen1 sentence2025State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 422 (Mo. banc 2013)). “‘By attacking the credibility of the state’s witnesses defense counsel invited a response from the state.’” State v. Minner, 311 S.W.3d 313, 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting State v. Castillo, 853 S.W.2d 381, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Ballard v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See id; see also Savory, 893 S.W.2d at 411 (finding no prejudice from State asking four different witnesses if other witnesses were lying, where it was “readily apparent from the 7 evidence presented that the state’s witnesses and the defense witnesses were in drastic disagreement as to the events of the day, and that the jury, therefore, had to determine the credibility of the witnesses in order to render their verdict”); cf. Ballard v. State, 408 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (finding post-conviction movant could not demonstrate prejudice from failure to object to State questioning mo | 1 | 1 |
State v. Savorygreen1 sentence2021See id; see also Savory, 893 S.W.2d at 411 (finding no prejudice from State asking four different witnesses if other witnesses were lying, where it was “readily apparent from the 7 evidence presented that the state’s witnesses and the defense witnesses were in drastic disagreement as to the events of the day, and that the jury, therefore, had to determine the credibility of the witnesses in order to render their verdict”); cf. Ballard v. State, 408 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (finding post-conviction movant could not demonstrate prejudice from failure to object to State questioning mo | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wisegreen1 sentence1997See State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 900 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 510 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 613 U.S. 1093 , 115 S.Ct. 757 , 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Storeygreen1 sentence1997See State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 900 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 510 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 613 U.S. 1093 , 115 S.Ct. 757 , 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Shaw v. State, 766 S.W.2d 676, 680 [1] (Mo.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Crosswhite v. Stategreen1 sentence1977Crosswhite v. State, 426 S.W.2d 67, 71 [2] (Mo.1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gossage v. Barbour
green
1 sentence1997See State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 900 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 510 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 613 U.S. 1093 , 115 S.Ct. 757 , 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hill v. Singletary
green
1 sentence1997See State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 900 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 510 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 613 U.S. 1093 , 115 S.Ct. 757 , 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Sallee
green
1 sentence1971State v. Sallee, Mo., 436 S.W.2d 246 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. James
green
2 sentences1967Appellant asserts that he was deprived of a fair trial because of the manner in which the trial court conducted the trial "because he improperly intruded into the trial by cross-examining, interrupting and interfering with the witnesses for the defense, exhibited his bias and prejudice against the defense by his attitude and actions toward the defense and defense witnesses, and abused his discretion." We are convinced from a study of this transcript that this point is well taken; that in spite of his efforts to avoid error the judge, no doubt subconsciously but nevertheless effectively, assume 1967Appellant asserts that he was deprived of a fair trial because of the manner in which the trial court conducted the trial “because he improperly intruded into the trial by cross-examining, interrupting and interfering with the witnesses for the defense, exhibited his bias and prejudice against the defense by his attitude and actions toward the defense and defense witnesses, and abused his discretion.” We are convinced from a study of this transcript that this point is well taken; that in spite of his efforts to avoid error the judge, no doubt subconsciously but nevertheless effectively, assume | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Hanser v. Bieber
green
1 sentence1939In each of said cases, as also in Hanser v. Bieber, supra, it is to be noted that the witnesses for the prosecution and the witnesses for the defense had equal knowledge of the material facts in dispute and two conflicting versions of the material facts involved could not be true. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Cottingham v. Weeks
neutral
1 sentence1907In this country, the duty of prosecuting for public offenses is devolved upon a public officer chosen for the purpose instead of being left, as in England, to the voluntary action of the party injured. [Cooley oh Torts, star page 88.] Plaintiff was in no sense a party to that action. [Gray v. McDonald, 104 Mo. 303 ; Cottingham v. Weeks, 54 Ga. 275 .] He had no right to direct the prosecution nor opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Gray v. McDonald
green
1 sentence1907In this country, the duty of prosecuting for public offenses is devolved upon a public officer chosen for the purpose instead of being left, as in England, to the voluntary action of the party injured. [Cooley oh Torts, star page 88.] Plaintiff was in no sense a party to that action. [Gray v. McDonald, 104 Mo. 303 ; Cottingham v. Weeks, 54 Ga. 275 .] He had no right to direct the prosecution nor opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
White v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1889The case somewhat resembles the case of White v. Railroad, 20 Mo. App. 564 , wheré we held that there was no error in submitting the question of negligence to the jury. | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.