10 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2010“The test for determining prejudice is whether the planned defense to the original charge still would be available after the amendment and whether the defendant’s evidence would be applicable before and after the amendment.” Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920, 926 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing State v. Taylor, 375 S.W.2d 58, 63 (Mo.1964); State v. McGinness, 215 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Seelergreen1 sentence2010“The test for determining prejudice is whether the planned defense to the original charge still would be available after the amendment and whether the defendant’s evidence would be applicable before and after the amendment.” Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920, 926 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing State v. Taylor, 375 S.W.2d 58, 63 (Mo.1964); State v. McGinness, 215 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McGinnessgreen1 sentence2010“The test for determining prejudice is whether the planned defense to the original charge still would be available after the amendment and whether the defendant’s evidence would be applicable before and after the amendment.” Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920, 926 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing State v. Taylor, 375 S.W.2d 58, 63 (Mo.1964); State v. McGinness, 215 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2006"In matters involving the admission of evidence, this Court reviews for prejudice, not mere error, and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial." State v. Hayes, 113 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Mo.App. 2006“In matters involving the admission of evidence, this Court reviews for prejudice, not mere error, and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Hayes, 113 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hirtgreen1 sentence2006State v. Hirt, 16 S.W.3d 628, 632 [7] (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carsongreen1 sentence2001State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo. banc 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Sumnicht Ex Rel. Sumnicht v. Sackmangreen1 sentence2000“It is well settled that a trial court, on remand, with respect to the issues addressed by the appellate court on appeal, only has that authority granted to it by the appellate court in its mandate.” Sumnicht, 968 S.W.2d at 174 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Welsch v. Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Educationgreen1 sentence1988“The element of adversity is essential to the meaning of ‘hearing’ as it is used in § 536.010 ... in using the term ‘hearing’ in § 536.100, the General Assembly contemplated an adversary proceeding.” Welsch v. Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, 731 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
In re Adoption of S.green1 sentence1982In re Adoption of S., 581 S.W.2d 113, 118 (Mo.App.1979); In re Marriage of Cavitt, 564 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Cavittgreen1 sentence1982In re Adoption of S., 581 S.W.2d 113, 118 (Mo.App.1979); In re Marriage of Cavitt, 564 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Hampshire v. Maine
green
1 sentence2023In ruling on Employer’s summary judgment motion, the circuit court considered the additional New Hampshire factors of “judicial acceptance” and “unfair advantage or detriment.” As noted above, the “judicial acceptance” factor involves consideration into “whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept the earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or second court was misled.” New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Samuel Stallings v. Hussmann Corporation Brian Groninger
green
1 sentence2023This does not end our inquiry, however, as the facts surrounding any “inconsistency” in this case do not present the kind of “specific factual situation” that 3 LaBranche argued in his Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment that the facts of his case are “closely akin to those in Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2006)” where the court found that Stallings’s “failure to disclose in bankruptcy the subsequent filing of the pending cause of action was an inconsistent position, however the second and third prongs of the equitable estoppel doctrine we | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp.
green
1 sentence2020Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346 ; Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence2006Kehner, 886 S.W.2d at 133-34; James, 869 S.W.2d at 278 . 8 This does not end our inquiry, however, because an appellate court may not reverse for instructional error unless prejudice results therefrom. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence1999As stated, supra, “The concepts of ‘veracity,’ ‘reliability,’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ are relevant considerations but they are not entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly applied in every case.” Hill, 854 S.W.2d at 817 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.