78 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Springfield v. Geegreen2 sentences2010City of Springfield v. Gee, 149 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Mo.App.2004). 2010Standard of Review In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment, “we employ a de novo standard of review.” Neasler v. Keirsbilck, 307 S.W.3d 193, 194 (Mo.App.2010) (citing City of Springfield v. Gee, 149 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Mo.App.2004)). | 7 | 8 |
Burns v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022“Where, as here, the trial court granted summary judgment, this Court [] applies a de novo standard of review.” [Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505, 509 (Mo. banc 2010)]. 2022“Where, as here, the trial court granted summary judgment, this Court also applies a de novo standard of review.” Id. | 5 | 12 |
ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.green2 sentences2019Id. 2017Applying a de novo standard of review, see ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993), we reverse the trial court’s judgment because Plaintiff did not meet its burden under Rule 74.04. 1 Specifically, Plaintiffs statement of uncontroverted material facts did not demonstrate that there was no dispute about each of the facts supporting each element of the claims upon which Plaintiff would have had the burden of proof at trial. | 3 | 6 |
Marion v. Marcusgreen2 sentences2019P'ship, L.L.L.P. v. City of Columbia, 307 S.W.3d 243, 252 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (citing Marion v. Marcus, 199 S.W.3d 887, 893-94 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)). 2006The court adopted a de novo standard, following the language of Supreme Court Rule 70.02(a). 1 Id. at 892-94 . | 3 | 4 |
Rader Family Ltd. Partnership v. City of Columbiagreen2 sentences2021P’ship, L.L.L.P. v. City of Columbia, 307 S.W.3d 243, 252 (Mo.App. 2010). 2019P'ship, L.L.L.P. v. City of Columbia, 307 S.W.3d 243, 252 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (citing Marion v. Marcus, 199 S.W.3d 887, 893-94 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)). | 3 | 3 |
Lampley v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Stiens v. Director of Revenue, 19 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (citing section 302.535.1 and 479.500.4(2)). 2015See, e.g., Stiens v. Director of Revenue, 19 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (citing section 302.535.1 and 479.500.4(2)). | 3 | 3 |
Gray v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment, “we employ a de novo standard of review.” Neisler v. Keirsbilek, 307 S.W.3d 193, 194 (Mo.App.2010). 2011In reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment, "we employ a de novo standard of review." Neisler v. Keirsbilck, 307 S.W.3d 193, 194 (Mo. App.2010) (emphasis omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Bland v. IMCO RECYCLING, INC.green2 sentences2006Gee, 149 S.W.3d at 612 ; Bland v. IMCO Recycling, Inc., 122 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo.App.2003). 2004Bland v. IMCO Recycling, Inc., 122 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo.App.2003). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Smothersgreen2 sentences2023Standard of Review “When the facts are uncontested and the only issue is a matter of statutory construction, we review the circuit court’s dismissal of a felony complaint under a de novo standard.” State v. Smothers, 297 S.W.3d 626, 632 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (citing Holtcamp v. State, 259 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Mo. banc 2008)). 2016But “[wjhen the facts are uncontested and the only issue is a matter of statutory construction, we review the circuit court’s dismissal of a felony complaint under a de novo standard.” State v. Smothers, 297 S.W.3d 626, 632 (Mo.App.W.D.2009). | 2 | 2 |
Holtcamp v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Standard of Review “When the facts are uncontested and the only issue is a matter of statutory construction, we review the circuit court’s dismissal of a felony complaint under a de novo standard.” State v. Smothers, 297 S.W.3d 626, 632 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (citing Holtcamp v. State, 259 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Mo. banc 2008)). 2009Holtcamp v. State, 259 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Mo. banc 2008); State v. Rousseau, 34 S.W.3d 254, 259 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Ryann Spencer Group, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2013Ryann Spencer Group, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of America, 275 S.W.3d 284, 287 (Mo.App.E.D.2008). 2012Ryann Spencer Group, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of America, 275 S.W.3d 284, 287 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Murphy v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.green2 sentences2011As such, we will not defer to the trial court's decision, Murphy v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins., Co., 83 S.W.3d 663, 665 (Mo.App.2002), but rather, we will use the same standards the trial court should have used in reaching its decision to grant the motion for summary judgment. 2011As such, we will not defer to the trial court’s decision, Murphy v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., Co., 83 S.W.3d 663, 665 (Mo.App.2002), but rather, we will use the same standards the trial court should have used in reaching its decision to grant the motion for summary judgment. | 2 | 2 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen2 sentences1996Evidence was presented by Respondent and the trial court granted the petition and enjoined the Director from denying Respondent a license under § 302.060(9). 4 In her sole point on appeal, the Director states that the trial court erred in enjoining the Director from denying a license to Respondent as the injunction required the Director to act contrary to § 302.060(9) in that Respondent has been convicted more than twice in state court of crimes “relating to driving while intoxicated.” As this was a court tried case, our review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) 1980Lam-mert antedated Murphy v. Carron, supra. It is apparent that a de novo standard of review was used by this court in Lammert . | 1 | 2 |
Jessica Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LPgreen1 sentence2025Hogan and Bliss argue that we should review this claim of error under the de novo standard of review because “[w]hether the jury was properly instructed is a question of law that [we] review[] de novo.” Zerpa v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., 662 S.W.3d 1 , 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP, 450 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Mo. banc 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Antonio Westgreen1 sentence2022The trial court was "not required to hear testimony from jurors to rule on a motion for new trial that is brought on allegations of juror misconduct." State v. West, 425 S.W.3d 151, 155 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Shelter Insurance Companiesgreen1 sentence2021Companies, 351 S.W.3d 692, 695-96 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Missouri Department of Conservationgreen1 sentence2021Turner v. Missouri Department of Conservation, 349 S.W.3d 434, 442 (Mo.App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Pinkerton v. Fahnestockgreen1 sentence2020Pinkerton v. Fahnestock, 531 S.W.3d 36, 44 (Mo. banc 2017), a de novo standard of review is appropriate for appellate review of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration when a court must analyze the terms of an arbitration agreement. 5 Analysis I. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brunergreen1 sentence2020State v. Bruner, 541 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2018) (citing State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Mo. banc 2014)); see also Rule 28.01(c), Mo. R. | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Bruce Piercegreen1 sentence2020State v. Bruner, 541 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2018) (citing State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Mo. banc 2014)); see also Rule 28.01(c), Mo. R. | 1 | 1 |
| Goerlitz v. City of Maryvillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rousseaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barekman v. City of Republicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cole Ex Rel. Cole v. Warren County R-III School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois v. Gatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wampler v. Director of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sutton v. Vee Jay Cement Contracting Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. State, Department of Social Services, Division of Family Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Green v. Director of Revenue State of Mo.green | 1 | 1 |
| St. Louis Children's Hospital v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jarvis v. Director of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dove v. Director of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vogel v. Director of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phipps v. School District of Kansas Citygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
green
2 sentences1995Based on principles of trust law, “a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” 489 U.S. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. at 956-57 . 1995Based on principles of trust law, “a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” 489 U.S. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. at 956-57 . | 3 | 1990–1996 |
Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018So we operate under a de novo standard of review with no need to defer to the trial court's decision." Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc'y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 , 905 (Ky. 2013) (internal citations omitted). 2018So we operate under a de novo standard of review with no need to defer to the trial court's decision." Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc'y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 , 905 (Ky. 2013) (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State of Missouri v. Tawanda Kunonga
green
1 sentence2022Kunonga, 490 S.W.3d at 770 ; Davis, 934 S.W.2d at 334-35 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2022Kunonga, 490 S.W.3d at 770 ; Davis, 934 S.W.2d at 334-35 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Seeck v. Geico General Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2021“Where the trial court granted summary judgment, we also apply a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citing Long v. Shelter Ins. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Edgerton v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2019Id. "'In making this determination as to a particular instruction, [we] view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to its submission.'" Id. (quoting Edgerton, 280 S.W.3d at 65-66 ). 5 "We review a trial court's decision not to give a proffered instruction under a de novo standard of review, determining whether it was supported by the evidence and the law." Rader Family Ltd. 2019Id. "'In making this determination as to a particular instruction, [we] view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to its submission.'" Id. (quoting Edgerton, 280 S.W.3d at 65-66 ). 5 "We review a trial court's decision not to give a proffered instruction under a de novo standard of review, determining whether it was supported by the evidence and the law." Rader Family Ltd. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jackson v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2018Jackson v. Commonwealth, 187 S.W.3d 300 , 305 (Ky. 2006). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
North Fork Collieries, LLC v. Hall
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 102 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kristin Nicole Stiers v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2018Here, application of the de novo standard of review is also appropriate because the applicable standard of care is derived from a regulation, and thus "this case involves the application and interpretation of a regulation, [which we review] de novo. " Stiers v. Dir. of Revenue , 477 S.W.3d 611 , 614 (Mo. banc 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Brantley Dunaway
green
1 sentence2018"The interpretation of a contract, including determining whether a contract is ambiguous, is a question of law to be determined de novo on appellate review." Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Dunaway, 490 S.W.3d 691 , 695 (Ky. 2016) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Farmers & Traders Bank v. Kibbe green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Albert J. Hoppe, Inc. v. St. Louis Public Service Co. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| McBurney v. Cameron green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Gibbons v. J. Nuckolls, Inc. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Burke v. Goodman green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Sterling green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Hollis v. Director of Revenue green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Medellin v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Kinder v. Director of Revenue green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Boyd v. Director of Revenue green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. O'Neal green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Koplar v. State Tax Commission green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.