four-step analysis (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

four-step analysis in Missouri

9 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2023 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Houston v. Cridergreen
moctapp · 2010 · cited in 5 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2015–2018
2 sentences

2018Scrivens , 489 S.W.3d at 365 -66 (quoting Houston v. Crider , 317 S.W.3d 178 , 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)) (emphasis added).

2016Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo.App. 2010) (emphasis added).

45
In Re KCMgreen
moctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See In re M.A., 185 S.W.3d 256, 262 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The court . . . ‘never reaches the issue of best interest . . . , unless and until a statutory ground for termination is proven.’” (quoting In re K.C.M., 85 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002))); In re S.J.H., 124 S.W.3d 63, 70 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (declining to address mother’s point challenging the trial court’s best-interest analysis where appellate court reversed judgment terminating parental rights on statutory grounds). 15 To succeed on her against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, J.O. must engage in the following four-step

11
Juvenile Officer v. I.A.green
moctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See In re M.A., 185 S.W.3d 256, 262 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The court . . . ‘never reaches the issue of best interest . . . , unless and until a statutory ground for termination is proven.’” (quoting In re K.C.M., 85 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002))); In re S.J.H., 124 S.W.3d 63, 70 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (declining to address mother’s point challenging the trial court’s best-interest analysis where appellate court reversed judgment terminating parental rights on statutory grounds). 15 To succeed on her against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, J.O. must engage in the following four-step

11
In Re SJHgreen
moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See In re M.A., 185 S.W.3d 256, 262 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The court . . . ‘never reaches the issue of best interest . . . , unless and until a statutory ground for termination is proven.’” (quoting In re K.C.M., 85 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002))); In re S.J.H., 124 S.W.3d 63, 70 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (declining to address mother’s point challenging the trial court’s best-interest analysis where appellate court reversed judgment terminating parental rights on statutory grounds). 15 To succeed on her against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, J.O. must engage in the following four-step

11
State v. Griddinegreen
moctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Flora v. Flora, 426 S.W.3d 730, 738 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014).

11
Syn, Inc. v. Beebegreen
moctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122, 128 (Mo.App.

11
Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc.green
moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 310, 329 (Mo.App.2000).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Scrivens v. Scrivens green
moctapp · 2016
1 sentence

2018Scrivens , 489 S.W.3d at 365 -66 (quoting Houston v. Crider , 317 S.W.3d 178 , 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)) (emphasis added).

12018–2018

Where else courts name it

FL 41 (1982–2024) KS 19 (1995–2026) WA 13 (1995–2025) MI 11 (1990–2026) OR 11 (2003–2016) PA 9 (1983–2022) MO 9 (2006–2023) NJ 7 (1996–2024) LA 7 (1994–2010) TN 7 (2001–2024) CO 6 (1990–2026) KY 5 (2010–2016) CA 5 (1982–2014) NY 5 (1984–2010) IA 3 (1974–2009) OH 2 (2003–2010) NC 2 (2005–2026) MD 2 (2000–2000) DE 2 (2023–2024) IL 2 (1975–2020) VA 2 (2003–2020) WV 2 (1996–2014) IN 2 (1991–2003) NV 2 (1995–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check