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.
9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2016 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. Mooneygreen2 sentences2011Cook attached an affidavit of the victim recanting her testimony against Cook. 2 We granted Cook’s motion in light of State v. Terry, 304 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. banc 2010), and State v. Mooney, 670 S.W.2d 510, 515-16 (Mo.App. 2010Cook attached an affidavit of the victim recanting her testimony against Cook. 1 Cook’s motion was taken with the case and we now grant his motion in light of the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Terry, 304 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. banc 2010) and the decision in State v. Mooney, 670 S.W.2d 510, 515-16 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
In re Estate of Fostergreen2 sentences2016Because the Cook analysis.-of section 473.233 was necessary to determine whether removal was appropriate under section 473.140, Louie is incorrect in characterizing it as dicta. ■ Louie also maintains that Cook conflicts with In re Estate of Foster, 878 S.W.2d 896 *87 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). 2016Because the Cook analysis.-of section 473.233 was necessary to determine whether removal was appropriate under section 473.140, Louie is incorrect in characterizing it as dicta. ■ Louie also maintains that Cook conflicts with In re Estate of Foster, 878 S.W.2d 896 *87 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Behrman v. Postongreen2 sentences2015Id. at 109 (Mooney, J., dissenting). 2015Id. at 109 (Mooney, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
City of St. Louis v. Cookgreen2 sentences2013The Cook court applied a rational-basis analysis: “It is ‘only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed (or inferred), and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.’ ” 221 S.W.2d at 470 (emphasis added). 21 If the ordinance is determined not to be quasi-criminal, then Supreme Court precedent dictates that the Cook standard would be the applicable standard in this case. 2013The Cook court applied a rational-basis analysis: “It is ‘only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed (or inferred), and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.’ ” 221 S.W.2d at 470 (emphasis added). 21 If the ordinance is determined not to be quasi-criminal, then Supreme Court precedent dictates that the Cook standard would be the applicable standard in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Videon Corporation v. Burtongreen1 sentence2002Videon Corp. v. Burton, 369 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Mo.App. 1963) (courts should examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte); Roy v. Mo. Dep’t. of Corr., 23 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Roy v. Missouri Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2002Videon Corp. v. Burton, 369 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Mo.App. 1963) (courts should examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte); Roy v. Mo. Dep’t. of Corr., 23 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCluregreen1 sentence1987State v. Scott, 649 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Mo.App.1983); State v. McClure, 632 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Mo.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Topi v. Topigreen1 sentence1987State v. Scott, 649 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Mo.App.1983); State v. McClure, 632 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Mo.App.1982). | 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. Terry
green
2 sentences2011Cook attached an affidavit of the victim recanting her testimony against Cook. 2 We granted Cook’s motion in light of State v. Terry, 304 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. banc 2010), and State v. Mooney, 670 S.W.2d 510, 515-16 (Mo.App. 2010Cook attached an affidavit of the victim recanting her testimony against Cook. 1 Cook’s motion was taken with the case and we now grant his motion in light of the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Terry, 304 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. banc 2010) and the decision in State v. Mooney, 670 S.W.2d 510, 515-16 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Grubbs v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund
green
1 sentence2010In reaching this conclusion, the Commission relied upon Grubbs v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, 298 S.W.3d 907 , *108 911 (Mo.App.2009), in which the Eastern District of this court held that a stipulation for compromise settlement constitutes a claim against an employer under section 287.430. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Murphy v. Carron
green
1 sentence1985Rule 73.01; Murphy v. Carron, supra. We have considered Cook’s motion for damages for frivolous appeal that was taken with the case, and now deny it. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.