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 1981–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ivan Mitchell v. State of Missourigreen2 sentences2024The State contends reversal and remand is unnecessary here because the circumstances of this case fit one exception to the remand requirement: “when it is clear the movant is entitled to no relief as a matter of law and will suffer no prejudice by forgoing remand.” See Ross, 659 S.W.3d at 372; see also Mitchell, 510 S.W.3d at 371 . 2023Id. at 371 . | 1 | 2 |
David L. Ross v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2024The State contends reversal and remand is unnecessary here because the circumstances of this case fit one exception to the remand requirement: “when it is clear the movant is entitled to no relief as a matter of law and will suffer no prejudice by forgoing remand.” See Ross, 659 S.W.3d at 372; see also Mitchell, 510 S.W.3d at 371 . | 1 | 1 |
Roy D. Brown v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2023See Brown v. State, 602 S.W.3d 846 , 850-51, 850 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2023Id. at 256-57. | 1 | 1 |
CARL LEE JACKSON v. STATE OF MISSOURIgreen1 sentence2023Id. at 646 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Carenzo Pittman v. State of Missourigreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Childers v. State, 462 S.W.3d 825 , 828 (Mo.App.2015); Bustamante v. State, 478 S.W.3d 431 , 435 n. 2 (Mo.App.2015); Pittman v. State; 504 S.W.3d 76, 81-82 , 2016 WL 2895113, at *4 (Mo.App.E.D. 2016See, e.g., Childers v. State, 462 S.W.3d 825 , 828 (Mo.App.2015); Bustamante v. State, 478 S.W.3d 431 , 435 n. 2 (Mo.App.2015); Pittman v. State; 504 S.W.3d 76, 81-82 , 2016 WL 2895113, at *4 (Mo.App.E.D. | 1 | 1 |
John Childers v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Childers v. State, 462 S.W.3d 825 , 828 (Mo.App.2015); Bustamante v. State, 478 S.W.3d 431 , 435 n. 2 (Mo.App.2015); Pittman v. State; 504 S.W.3d 76, 81-82 , 2016 WL 2895113, at *4 (Mo.App.E.D. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Bullard v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clemmonsgreen2 sentences1999State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907 (Mo.banc 1988); Rule 30.20. 1999State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907 (Mo.bane 1988); Rule 30.20. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ralph B. Jones v. State of Missouri
green
1 sentence2023Jones v. State, 643 S.W.3d 918 , 922 n.1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022); accord Rule 29.15(g) (effective Nov. 4, 2021) (establishing 120-day filing period for amended motion and providing the court “may not extend the time for filing the amended motion”). 12 No exception to this remand requirement is applicable under the circumstances present here. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Brittany Hunter v. Charles Moore, Sr.
green
1 sentence2018Because Attorney Davis's testimony was beyond the scope of our mandate in Francis v. Wieland , we will not consider this argument other than to note that, "[i]n reaching its judgment, the trial court is free to believe any, all, or none of the evidence presented at trial," and we "defer to the trial court's credibility determinations." Hunter v. Moore , 486 S.W.3d 919 , 925 (Mo. banc 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Alyssa D. Bustamante v. State of Missouri
green
1 sentence2016See, e.g., Childers v. State, 462 S.W.3d 825 , 828 (Mo.App.2015); Bustamante v. State, 478 S.W.3d 431 , 435 n. 2 (Mo.App.2015); Pittman v. State; 504 S.W.3d 76, 81-82 , 2016 WL 2895113, at *4 (Mo.App.E.D. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1999Judge Sweeney explained why he was hearing the motion as follows: "Judge Pinnell has been hospitalized with pneumonia, hospitalized because of conditions involving the right shoulder, hip and knee and has required extensive physical therapy and is unable at this time to conduct the hearing." Defendant relies on State v. Davis, 564 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.banc 1978), to argue that reversible error occurred because Judge Sweeney handled the remand hearing. 1999Judge Sweeney explained why he was hearing the motion as follows: “Judge Pinnell has been hospitalized with pneumonia, hospitalized because of conditions involving the right shoulder, hip and knee and has required extensive physical therapy and is unable at this time to conduct the hearing.” Defendant relies on State v. Davis, 564 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.banc 1978), to argue that reversible error occurred because Judge Sweeney handled the remand hearing. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Rigby Corp. v. Boatmen's Bank and Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1998In support of their request for a remand of this claim, the Killions contend that in Rigby Corp. v. Boatmen's Bank and Trust Co., 713 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App.1986), this court recognized a tort cause of action by a borrower against a lender for breach of the duty of good faith. 1998In support of their request for a remand of this claim, the Killions contend that in Rigby Corp. v. Boatmen’s Bank and Trust Co., 713 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App.1986), this court recognized a tort cause of action by a borrower against a lender for breach of the duty of good faith. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Burgess v. Sweet
green
1 sentence1984Burgess v. Sweet, 662 S.W.2d 916 (Mo.App.1983); State ex. rel. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Sager
green
2 sentences1981Inasmuch as the trial court implicitly found these statements voluntary, and such finding being substantially supported by the record, appellant’s first contention is rejected.” The remand for such hearing ordered by the principal opinion is contrary to the recent case on which the majority would rely, State v. Sager, 600 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.App.1980). 1981Inasmuch as the trial court implicitly found these statements voluntary, and such finding being substantially supported by the record, appellant's first contention is rejected." The remand for such hearing ordered by the principal opinion is contrary to the recent case on which the majority would rely, State v. Sager, 600 S.W.2d 541 (Mo. App.1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.