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 1970–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coventry Manor Phase II Associates, L.P. v. Hainengreen2 sentences2010“Common law elements of a breach of contract action do not require, to the extent a contract is in writing, that the writing must specify the availability of a claim for money damages in the event of a breach.” Coventry Manor Phase II Assocs., L.P. v. Hainen, 904 S.W.2d 279, 281-82 (Mo.App. 2010"Common law elements of a breach of contract action do not *672 require, to the extent a contract is in writing, that the writing must specify the availability of a claim for money damages in the event of a breach." Coventry Manor Phase II Assocs., L.P. v. Hainen, 904 S.W.2d 279, 281-82 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
New York v. Quarlesgreen2 sentences1988The court held “that on these facts there is a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence and that the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved.” Quarles, 104 S.Ct. at 2631 . 1988The court added, “We think police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.” Id. at 2633. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences1985See State v. Ward, 361 Mo. 1236 , 239 S.W.2d 313 (en banc 1951) [7, 8]; Ballew v. Ainsworth, 670 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1984) [7, 8]; contra, Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners, 9 Cal.3d 356 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 (en banc 1973). 1985See State v. Ward, 361 Mo. 1236 , 239 S.W.2d 313 (en banc 1951) [7, 8]; Ballew v. Ainsworth, 670 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1984) [7, 8]; contra, Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners, 9 Cal.3d 356 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 (en banc 1973). | 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. Stewart
green
1 sentence2023By contrast, the availability of the defense of necessity has been “extremely limited.” Stewart, 186 S.W.3d at 834 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,727 Dr. Walter Burgess and Mrs. Walter H. Burgess v. Colorado Serum Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999“If a contractor has acted in the sovereign’s stead and can prove the elements of the defense, then he should not be denied the extension of sovereign immunity that is the government contractor defense.” Burgess, 772 F.2d at 846 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1992With this shadow cast upon the case, and with the outcome of the trial therefore called to question, we hold the motion court was clearly erroneous in its finding that there was no prejudice to appellant within the meaning of Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2068 . 1992With this shadow cast upon the case, and with the outcome of the trial therefore called to question, we hold the -motion court was clearly erroneous in its finding that there was no prejudice to appellant within the meaning of Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2068 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ballew v. Ainsworth
green
1 sentence1985See State v. Ward, 361 Mo. 1236 , 239 S.W.2d 313 (en banc 1951) [7, 8]; Ballew v. Ainsworth, 670 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1984) [7, 8]; contra, Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners, 9 Cal.3d 356 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 (en banc 1973). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences1985See State v. Ward, 361 Mo. 1236 , 239 S.W.2d 313 (en banc 1951) [7, 8]; Ballew v. Ainsworth, 670 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1984) [7, 8]; contra, Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners, 9 Cal.3d 356 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 (en banc 1973). 1985See State v. Ward, 361 Mo. 1236 , 239 S.W.2d 313 (en banc 1951) [7, 8]; Ballew v. Ainsworth, 670 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1984) [7, 8]; contra, Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners, 9 Cal.3d 356 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 (en banc 1973). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Randolph
green
1 sentence1981State v. Randolph, supra. We believe the matter was so apparent and so well-established in law that a competent and effective counsel would have raised it. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Green
green
1 sentence1980The State contents itself on this issue by citing State v. Green, 470 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. banc 1971), and State v. Haddix, 566 S.W.2d 266 (Mo.App.1978), asserting that these cases categorically deny the availability of the defense of necessity. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Haddix
green
2 sentences1980The State contents itself on this issue by citing State v. Green, 470 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. banc 1971), and State v. Haddix, 566 S.W.2d 266 (Mo.App.1978), asserting that these cases categorically deny the availability of the defense of necessity. 1980Superficially, these cases can be so read, but close analysis makes the question much more doubtful. *542 Looking first to Haddix , an opinion of this court written by Judge Somerville and joined in by this writer, a conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because of an incident at trial which was held to have deprived the defendant of a “fair and impartial trial.” Haddix, 566 S.W.2d at 274 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Loftus v. Lee
green
1 sentence1970In Loftus v. Lee, Mo., 308 S.W.2d 654 , also an automobile collision case, this court again recognized the availability of the doctrine in Missouri. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.