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 1979–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In her motion, Movant asserts “[h]ad Counsel preserved this issue by arguing it at trial and placing it in a motion for new trial, this issue would have been preserved, and Ms. Jones would not have been vulnerable to being denied plain error review .... ” “The failure to preserve error for appellate review is not cognizable in a Rule 29.16 motion.” Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 646 (Mo. banc 2008); see also Everage v. State, 229 S.W.3d 99 , 102-OS (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). 2017As we have indicated in the post-conviction relief context, while “trial counsel has a duty to preserve error by asserting it in an appropriate post-trial motion[,] ... the failure to preserve error for appellate review does not affect a ... movant’s right to a fair trial.” Everage v. State, 229 S.W.3d 99, 103 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (emphasis in original). | 4 | 4 |
Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Delacroix, 407 S.W.3d at 32 ; Pope, 179 S.W.3d at 459 ; Mirth, 93 S.W.3d at 790 . | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Jones v. State , 514 S.W.3d 72 , 83 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ("The failure to preserve error for appellate review is not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 motion"). | 1 | 1 |
Strong v. Stategreen1 sentence2017In her motion, Movant asserts “[h]ad Counsel preserved this issue by arguing it at trial and placing it in a motion for new trial, this issue would have been preserved, and Ms. Jones would not have been vulnerable to being denied plain error review .... ” “The failure to preserve error for appellate review is not cognizable in a Rule 29.16 motion.” Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 646 (Mo. banc 2008); see also Everage v. State, 229 S.W.3d 99 , 102-OS (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2007State v. Thompson, 955 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences1991Separation of the jury “is matter of procedure, amounting to an irregularity, which must be taken advantage of by exception.” State v. Roberts, 272 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Mo.1954), quoting State v. Montgomery, 363 Mo. 459 , 251 S.W.2d 654, 656 (1952), and State v. Bowman, 12 S.W.2d 51 , 52 (Mo.1928). 1991Separation of the jury “is matter of procedure, amounting to an irregularity, which must be taken advantage of by exception.” State v. Roberts, 272 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Mo.1954), quoting State v. Montgomery, 363 Mo. 459 , 251 S.W.2d 654, 656 (1952), and State v. Bowman, 12 S.W.2d 51 , 52 (Mo.1928). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsgreen1 sentence1991Separation of the jury “is matter of procedure, amounting to an irregularity, which must be taken advantage of by exception.” State v. Roberts, 272 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Mo.1954), quoting State v. Montgomery, 363 Mo. 459 , 251 S.W.2d 654, 656 (1952), and State v. Bowman, 12 S.W.2d 51 , 52 (Mo.1928). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pope v. Pope
green
1 sentence2024See Delacroix, 407 S.W.3d at 32 ; Pope, 179 S.W.3d at 459 ; Mirth, 93 S.W.3d at 790 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mirth v. Regional Building Inspection Co.
green
1 sentence2024See Delacroix, 407 S.W.3d at 32 ; Pope, 179 S.W.3d at 459 ; Mirth, 93 S.W.3d at 790 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Barker
green
1 sentence1979Louis brethren disposed of a failure to preserve the test ampoule by saying at 11: “. . . [T]he uncontra-dicted evidence was that the test was administered in accordance with the rules of the Division, no prejudice to the defendant was shown, and we adhere to our ruling in Barker [State v. Barker, 490 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App.1973)] rejecting the same contention here made.” Therefore, it is the holding of this Court that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.