9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., State v. Jones, 204 S.W.3d 287, 292 (Mo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2004See State v. Mendoza, 75 S.W.3d 842, 845-46 (Mo.App. 2004See State v. Mendoza, 75 S.W.3d 842, 845-46 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watkinsgreen1 sentence2002See id. at 884 (noting that investigatory stops for traffic violations are usually found to be completed after the records check is completed, the trooper receives information back from dispatch, the trooper processes and issues the citation or warning, the trooper returns the license and citation to the driver, or the trooper tells the driver to go back to the driver’s car). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2009"Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave.” Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. at 788 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Abeln
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 810 n. 7. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State, Department of Social Services, Division of Aging v. Carroll Care Centers, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Malone
green
2 sentences1957There are no allegations concerning Leibig but the following allegations are made concerning the Liquor Control Department, namely: “that if said prosecution prevails that the rights of plaintiffs are jeopardized and the right to hold a license issued by the State of Missouri would be put in jeopardy, that plaintiffs would be subject to citation by the Supervisor of Liquor Control”; and that plaintiffs “would be in danger of losing their nonintoxicating beer license and subjected to a citation and a hearing by the State Liquor Department that plaintiffs would be endangered with the respect to 1957There are no allegations concerning Leibig but the following allegations are made concerning the Liquor Control Department, namely: “that if said prosecution prevails that the rights of plaintiffs are jeopardized and the right to hold a license issued by the State of Missouri would be put in jeopardy, that plaintiffs would be subject to citation by the Supervisor of Liquor Control”; and that plaintiffs “would be in danger of losing their nonintoxicating beer license and subjected to a citation and a hearing by the State Liquor Department that plaintiffs would be endangered with the respect to | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Nickols v. City of North Kansas
green
2 sentences1957See also City of Flat River v. Mackley, Mo.App., 212 S.W.2d 462 ; Nichols v. North Kansas City, 358 Mo. 402 , 214 S.W.2d 710 . 1957See also City of Flat River v. Mackley, Mo.App., 212 S.W.2d 462 ; Nichols v. North Kansas City, 358 Mo. 402 , 214 S.W.2d 710 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Halliburton
green
1 sentence1957There are no allegations concerning Leibig but the following allegations are made concerning the Liquor Control Department, namely: “that if said prosecution prevails that the rights of plaintiffs are jeopardized and the right to hold a license issued by the State of Missouri would be put in jeopardy, that plaintiffs would be subject to citation by the Supervisor of Liquor Control”; and that plaintiffs “would be in danger of losing their nonintoxicating beer license and subjected to a citation and a hearing by the State Liquor Department that plaintiffs would be endangered with the respect to | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State Ex Rel. Brown v. Blew
green
1 sentence1947Brown v. Blew, Auditor of Whitman County, 145 Pac. 2d 554 , l. c. 556, and that court said: “A number of eases from other jurisdictions have been cited in which the status of a court reporter was brought before the courts for determination and, while the statutes of the various states providing for the appointment of a court reporter are of similar import, there is a sufficient difference between them as to cause the courts, in construing and applying them, to refer to a court reporter as a ‘public officer/ a ‘local officer/ an ‘officer of the court/ an ‘officer/ a ‘state officer/ an ‘official | 1 | 1947–1947 |
McDaniel v. United Railways Co.
green
2 sentences1913Co., 165 Mo. App. 678 , 148 S. W. 464 , while not involving the construction of a deed, does involve that of a written contract. 1913Co., 165 Mo. App. 678 , 148 S. W. 464 , while not involving the construction of a deed, does involve that of a written contract. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.