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 2013–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Keathleygreen2 sentences2018See Doe v. Keathley , 290 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2009) ; and Doe v. Toelke , 389 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. banc 2012). 2018Id. ; Toelke , 389 S.W.3d at 167 . | 2 | 4 |
Emilee Williams, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Mercy Clinic Springfield Communities, f/k/a St. John's Clinic, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.green2 sentences2023Under Rule 84.13(c), “[p]lain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered on appeal, in the discretion of the court, though not raised or preserved, when the court finds that 2 Were we to address the argument in the Highway Patrol’s appellate brief (which we do not) it appears that a remand for further factual development concerning the nature of McCleery’s offense might have been required to actually determine whether her conviction subjected her to a federal registration requirement. 7 manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” “[P]lain error review is ra 2023Under Rule 84.13(c), “[p]lain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered on appeal, in the discretion of the court, though not raised or preserved, when the court finds that 2 Were we to address the argument in the Highway Patrol’s appellate brief (which we do not) it appears that a remand for further factual development concerning the nature of McCleery’s offense might have been required to actually determine whether her conviction subjected her to a federal registration requirement. 7 manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” “[P]lain error review is ra | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Toelke
green
2 sentences2022“When . . . the state registration requirement is based on an independent federal registration requirement, article I, section 13 is not implicated because the state registration requirement . . . is based on the person’s present status as a sex offender who ‘has been’ required to register pursuant to SORNA.” Id. (quoting Toelke, 389 S.W.3d at 167 ). 9 In 2013, § 566.090 was redesignated and transferred to § 566.101, which is titled “Sexual abuse, second degree, penalties.” The current iteration of Section 566.101 states: 1. 2022“When . . . the state registration requirement is based on an independent federal registration requirement, article I, section 13 is not implicated because the state registration requirement . . . is based on the person’s present status as a sex offender who ‘has been’ required to register pursuant to SORNA.” Id. (quoting Toelke, 389 S.W.3d at 167 ). 9 In 2013, § 566.090 was redesignated and transferred to § 566.101, which is titled “Sexual abuse, second degree, penalties.” The current iteration of Section 566.101 states: 1. | 7 | 2013–2022 |
Montrell James v. Missouri State Highway Patrol
green
1 sentence2022Second, in James v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 505 S.W.3d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016), this Court re-affirmed the general rule set forth in Keathley and Toelke, and held that even if the petitioner met the requirements for removal from the Registry pursuant to §§ 589.400.8 and 589.400.9, RSMo (2016), “he still has a duty to register under the federally mandated requirement of SORNA.” Id. at 383. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Doe v. Neer
green
1 sentence2022First, in Doe v. Neer, 409 S.W.3d 451 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013), this Court recognized that Keathley and Toelke “discuss the interplay between the state registration requirement found in [§] 589.400.1(7) of [MO-]SORA and the federal registration requirement of SORNA found in 42 U.S.C. § 16913 (a) 18,” id. at 455 (footnote added), and ultimately held that the petitioner was required to register pursuant to the separate registration requirements of both MO-SORA and SORNA, id. at 458–59. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.