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.
10 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1906–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stid v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.green2 sentences1932Judge Lamm, in the case of Stid v. Railroad, 211 Mo. 411, 415, 417 , 109 S. W. 663 , et seq., discussed at length the office of a motion in arrest, saying: “The office of a motion in arrest is said to be to call the court’s attention to error patent of record. 1932Judge Lamm, in the case of Stid v. Railroad, 211 Mo. 411, 415, 417 , 109 S. W. 663 , et seq., discussed at length the office of a motion in arrest, saying: “The office of a motion in arrest is said to be to call the court’s attention to error patent of record. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bryantgreen1 sentence1988As stated in State v. Cannady, supra, “The prosecutor can retaliate to an issue raised in defendant’s closing argument, even though it might otherwise be improper.” See also State v. Bryant, 741 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Mo.App.1987). | 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. Kempker
green
1 sentence1993In Kempker, supra, the prosecutor, in his closing argument, made a direct comment on the defendant’s failure to take the stand. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Cannady
green
1 sentence1988As stated in State v. Cannady, supra, “The prosecutor can retaliate to an issue raised in defendant’s closing argument, even though it might otherwise be improper.” See also State v. Bryant, 741 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Coach House of Ward Parkway, Inc. v. Ward Parkway Shops, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983City Products directs this court’s attention to the rule announced in Coach House of Ward Parkway, Inc. v. Ward Parkway Shops, Inc., 471 S.W.2d 464 (Mo.1971). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Seales v. State
green
2 sentences1982Failure to locate and cite Kee does not conform to the care and skill of a reasonably competent lawyer rendering similar services under the existing circumstances at time of the rape trial, as required by Seales v. State, 580 S.W.2d 733 (Mo.banc 1979). 1982Failure to locate and cite Kee does not conform to the care and skill of a reasonably competent lawyer rendering similar services under the existing circumstances at time of the rape trial, as required by Seales v. State, 580 S.W.2d 733 (Mo.banc 1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Murphy v. Carron
green
1 sentence1982Appellant also directs this court’s attention to the rule in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976), establishing our four point standard of review. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Tomlinson v. Ellison
green
1 sentence1977In Tomlinson v. Ellison, 104 Mo. 105 , 16 S.W. 201 (1891), the court held the refusal of the offer was proper where the party making the offer failed to call the court’s attention to the claim of waiver. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Martin v. Norton
green
1 sentence1977The defendant’s only citation, Martin v. Norton, 497 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.1973), does not assist him on the issue of waiver. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Stewart v. Outhwaite
neutral
2 sentences1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab 1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Taussig v. St. Louis & Kirkwood Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab 1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Heffernan v. Ragsdale
green
2 sentences1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab 1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Hales v. Raines
green
2 sentences1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab 1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co.
green
2 sentences1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab 1913We now cite these authorities as supporting our position: Rigsby v. Oil Well Supply Co., 115 Mo. App. 297, 307 , 91 S. W. 460 ; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 572 , 44 S. W. 326 ; Heffernan v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 375, 382 , 97 S. W. 890 ; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 63 , 141 S. W. 917 ; Tassig v. Railroad, 186 Mo. 269, 284 , 85 S. W. 378 , Besides this,' we call attention -to' the fact that plaintiff’s petition alleges that while traveling in his automobile he was “in the exercise of reasonable and proper care on his part” and that “he was running Ms automobile at a lawful and reasonab | 1 | 1913–1913 |
State v. Lentz
green
1 sentence1906No effort was made to produce the original letter at the trial and as it was shown to be in the office of the prosecuting witness (Fogg), on this showing the copy was not admissible in evidence. [State v. Lentz, 184 Mo. 223 ; Traber v. Hicks, 131 Mo. 181 .] This letter is a very important part of the evidence as it conceals from Fogg the fact that two hundred and fifty crates of the cranberries had been sold and the proceeds paid over to the Miller & Teasdale Co., before the letter was written, and tends to prove a preconceived design on the part of Teasdale or of Teasdale and Milby to convert | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.