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 1936–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pleasant and Gleason v. Stategreen1 sentence1967Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 201 S.W.2d 169 , 171-172: "Plaintiff's complaint is of nondirection, not misdirection; and plaintiff should have requested a clarifying instruction if desired." We submit that in Instruction No. 3 the ultimate facts were sufficiently hypothesized in keeping with the instructions approved in the above cases, including Jones v. Central States Oil Co., 350 Mo. 91 , 164 *113 S.W.2d 914, 919-920 [5], and Witherspoon v. Guttierez, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 874, 880 [5]. | 1 | 1 |
Witherspoon v. Guttierezgreen2 sentences1967Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 201 S.W.2d 169 , 171-172: "Plaintiff's complaint is of nondirection, not misdirection; and plaintiff should have requested a clarifying instruction if desired." We submit that in Instruction No. 3 the ultimate facts were sufficiently hypothesized in keeping with the instructions approved in the above cases, including Jones v. Central States Oil Co., 350 Mo. 91 , 164 *113 S.W.2d 914, 919-920 [5], and Witherspoon v. Guttierez, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 874, 880 [5]. 1967Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 201 S.W.2d 169 , 171-172: “Plaintiff’s complaint is of nondirection, not misdirection; and plaintiff should have requested a clarifying instruction if desired.” We submit that in Instruction No. 3 the ultimate facts were sufficiently hypothesized in keeping with the instructions approved in the above cases, including Jones v. Central States Oil Co., 350 Mo. 91 . 164 S.W.2d 914, 919-920 [5], and Witherspoon v. Guttierez, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 874, 880 [5]. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Central States Oil Co.green2 sentences1967Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 201 S.W.2d 169 , 171-172: “Plaintiff’s complaint is of nondirection, not misdirection; and plaintiff should have requested a clarifying instruction if desired.” We submit that in Instruction No. 3 the ultimate facts were sufficiently hypothesized in keeping with the instructions approved in the above cases, including Jones v. Central States Oil Co., 350 Mo. 91 . 164 S.W.2d 914, 919-920 [5], and Witherspoon v. Guttierez, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 874, 880 [5]. 1967Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 201 S.W.2d 169 , 171-172: “Plaintiff’s complaint is of nondirection, not misdirection; and plaintiff should have requested a clarifying instruction if desired.” We submit that in Instruction No. 3 the ultimate facts were sufficiently hypothesized in keeping with the instructions approved in the above cases, including Jones v. Central States Oil Co., 350 Mo. 91 . 164 S.W.2d 914, 919-920 [5], and Witherspoon v. Guttierez, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 874, 880 [5]. | 1 | 1 |
Engleman Ex Rel. Engelman v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.green2 sentences1960Engleman v. Railway Express Agency, 340 Mo. 360 , 100 S.W.2d 540, 543 (4-7); Matthews v. Mound City Cab Co., supra. If plaintiff felt the matter was not clear, he should have offered a clarifying instruction. 1960Engleman v. Railway Express Agency, 340 Mo. 360 , 100 S.W.2d 540, 543 (4-7); Matthews v. Mound City Cab Co., supra. If plaintiff felt the matter was not clear, he should have offered a clarifying instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hooper Ex Rel. Hooper v. Conrad
green
2 sentences1960Hooper v. Conrad, 364 Mo. 176 , 260 S.W.2d 496 ; Taylor v. Alexander, Mo.Sup., 283 S.W.2d 588, 591 . 1960Hooper v. Conrad, 364 Mo. 176 , 260 S.W.2d 496 ; Taylor v. Alexander, Mo.Sup., 283 S.W.2d 588, 591 . | 3 | 1955–1960 |
Sampson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
green
1 sentence1996Sampson, 560 S.W.2d at 584 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Barnes v. Marshall
green
1 sentence1978Barnes v. Marshall, 467 S.W.2d 70 [10, 11] (Mo.1971). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Wors v. Glasgow Village Supermarket, Inc.
green
1 sentence1978In Wore v. Glasgow Village Supermarket, Inc., 460 S.W.2d 583 [3] (Mo.1970) the court held that when, as here, evidence is admissable against one defendant but not the other, the latter is entitled to a clarifying instruction limiting the extent of that evidence, but when no such instruction is requested the trial court is not obliged to give one. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Jurgeson v. Romine
green
1 sentence1973In Jurgeson v. Romine, 442 S. W.2d 176 (Mo.App.1969), there were two separate causes of damage: occasional natural flooding, and that of a clogged condition of a natural water course, and the defendant’s clarifying instruction was refused by the court. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Brookshire
green
1 sentence1970Even if the propriety of the giving of the instruction had been properly preserved for review, as it was not (State v. Brookshire, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 681 ), appellant here requested no instruction on the collateral issue (State v. Ramsey, 355 Mo. 720 , 197 S.W.2d 949, 957 ; State v. Pughe, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 635, 641 ) of the volun-tariness of his admission, nor did he offer or suggest a clarifying instruction. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Pughe
green
1 sentence1970Even if the propriety of the giving of the instruction had been properly preserved for review, as it was not (State v. Brookshire, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 681 ), appellant here requested no instruction on the collateral issue (State v. Ramsey, 355 Mo. 720 , 197 S.W.2d 949, 957 ; State v. Pughe, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 635, 641 ) of the volun-tariness of his admission, nor did he offer or suggest a clarifying instruction. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Ramsey
green
2 sentences1970Even if the propriety of the giving of the instruction had been properly preserved for review, as it was not (State v. Brookshire, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 681 ), appellant here requested no instruction on the collateral issue (State v. Ramsey, 355 Mo. 720 , 197 S.W.2d 949, 957 ; State v. Pughe, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 635, 641 ) of the volun-tariness of his admission, nor did he offer or suggest a clarifying instruction. 1970Even if the propriety of the giving of the instruction had been properly preserved for review, as it was not (State v. Brookshire, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 681 ), appellant here requested no instruction on the collateral issue (State v. Ramsey, 355 Mo. 720 , 197 S.W.2d 949, 957 ; State v. Pughe, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 635, 641 ) of the volun-tariness of his admission, nor did he offer or suggest a clarifying instruction. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. Alexander
neutral
1 sentence1960Hooper v. Conrad, 364 Mo. 176 , 260 S.W.2d 496 ; Taylor v. Alexander, Mo.Sup., 283 S.W.2d 588, 591 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Williams Ex Rel. Sheehan v. Guyot
green
2 sentences1959Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 355 Mo. 824 , 198 S.W.2d 684 ; Williams v. Guyot, 344 Mo. 372 , 126 S.W.2d 1137 . 1959Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 355 Mo. 824 , 198 S.W.2d 684 ; Williams v. Guyot, 344 Mo. 372 , 126 S.W.2d 1137 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
green
2 sentences1959Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 355 Mo. 824 , 198 S.W.2d 684 ; Williams v. Guyot, 344 Mo. 372 , 126 S.W.2d 1137 . 1959Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 355 Mo. 824 , 198 S.W.2d 684 ; Williams v. Guyot, 344 Mo. 372 , 126 S.W.2d 1137 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Nelson v. C. Heinz Stove Co.
green
2 sentences1939The instruction did not say that negligence on the part of deceased would be presumed, and if plaintiffs thought it needed clarifying, in the respect under consideration, it was their duty to have submitted a clarifying instruction. [Nelson v. Heinz Stove Co., 320 Mo. 655 , 8 S.W.2d 918 ; Larkin v. Wells et al. 1939The instruction did not say that negligence on the part of deceased would be presumed, and if plaintiffs thought it needed clarifying, in the respect under consideration, it was their duty to have submitted a clarifying instruction. [Nelson v. Heinz Stove Co., 320 Mo. 655 , 8 S.W.2d 918 ; Larkin v. Wells et al. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Klaber v. Kansas City, Missouri
green
2 sentences1936If defendants feared that the jury might go outside of the evidence to fix the value as of some other date, it should have requested a clarifying instruction which would have removed the doubt.” If the defendants felt that the jury might fix the value as of sometime other than the time of the taking of the strip they should have asked a clarifying instruction. [Brouster v. Shell Pipe Line Corp. (Mo. App.), 16 S. W. (2d) 672 , 1. c. 674; Klaber, Admr. of Jamison, v. Kansas City, 223 Mo. App. 684 , 17 S. W. (2d) 621, 1 . c. 629; Walk v. St. 1936If defendants feared that the jury might go outside of the evidence to fix the value as of some other date, it should have requested a clarifying instruction which would have removed the doubt.” If the defendants felt that the jury might fix the value as of sometime other than the time of the taking of the strip they should have asked a clarifying instruction. [Brouster v. Shell Pipe Line Corp. (Mo. App.), 16 S. W. (2d) 672 , 1. c. 674; Klaber, Admr. of Jamison, v. Kansas City, 223 Mo. App. 684 , 17 S. W. (2d) 621, 1 . c. 629; Walk v. St. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.