regard principle in Missouri

9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2019 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
In the Interest of: J.A.R., D.K.R., and A.E.R., Children Under Seventeen Years of Age, Greene County Juvenile Office v. D.G.R.green mo · 2014 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Father’s first Point Relied On makes clear that his challenge is that there was “insufficient evidence” to support the trial court’s judgment in this regard and not a challenge that the decision was “against the weight of the evidence.” See In re J.A.R., 426 S.W.3d 624, 629-630 (Mo. banc 2014).	1	1
State v. Leakegreen moctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982The question then is whether the defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced. “[T]he test of prejudice in this regard is whether a defense under the charge as originally made would be equally available after the amendment and whether defendant’s evidence would be equally applicable after, as well as before, the amendment.” State v. Leake, 608 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Mo.App.1980).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Shockley v. Director, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Missouri Department of Social Services green moctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2019This nonetheless was sufficient to constitute an affront to the dignity of the courts that the agency wanted to deny the prior ruling was an order despite having "prevailed in this regard in that the hearing officer accepted the Dunklin County judgment as a court order under the statute and proceeded with a modification proceeding on the merits." Id. at 176 . 5 Bellinger v. Boatmen's Nat.	1	2019–2019
State v. Wilson green moctapp · 1976 1 sentence 1980“And the test of prejudice in this regard is whether a defense under the charge as originally made would be equally available after the amendment and whether defendant’s evidence would be equally applicable after, as well as before, the amendment.” State v. Wilson, 544 S.W.2d 859 (Mo.App.1976).	1	1980–1980
Stith v. St. Louis Public Service Co. green mo · 1952 2 sentences 1977Louis Public Service Co., 363 Mo. 442 , 251 S.W.2d 693 (1952). 1977Louis Public Service Co., 363 Mo. 442 , 251 S.W.2d 693 (1952).	1	1977–1977
Page v. Hamilton green mo · 1959 1 sentence 1977Equity asserts that it is entitled to be heard in this regard under the exception to the rule, announced in cases such as Page v. Hamilton, 329 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. 1959), and Stith v. St.	1	1977–1977
State v. Taylor green mo · 1964 1 sentence 1976State v. Taylor, 375 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.1964).	1	1976–1976
Blakeslee v. Board of Water Commissioners green conn · 1927 2 sentences 1970In this regard the analysis of this problem in Blak-eslee v. Water Com’rs., 106 Conn. 642 , 139 A. 106 , is persuasive. 1970In this regard the analysis of this problem in Blak-eslee v. Water Com’rs., 106 Conn. 642 , 139 A. 106 , is persuasive.	1	1970–1970
Schumacher v. Leslie green mo · 1950 2 sentences 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 . 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 .	1	1959–1959
Schumacher v. Leslie green mo · 1950 2 sentences 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 . 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 .	1	1959–1959
Reiling v. Russell green · 1939 2 sentences 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 . 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 .	1	1959–1959
General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co. green · 1932 2 sentences 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 . 1959General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845 , 55 S.W.2d 442 ; Reiling v. Russell, supra, 345 Mo. 517 , 134 S.W.2d 33 ; Schumaker v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238 , 232 S.W.2d 913 .	1	1959–1959
Ridenhour v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co. neutral mo · 1890 1 sentence 1896In this regard the instruction is in substantial compliance with the ruling in Ridenhour v. Railroad, 102 Mo. 270 ; Spillane v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 555 ; Burger v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 238 , and must be held sufficient.	1	1896–1896
Burger v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. green mo · 1892 1 sentence 1896In this regard the instruction is in substantial compliance with the ruling in Ridenhour v. Railroad, 102 Mo. 270 ; Spillane v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 555 ; Burger v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 238 , and must be held sufficient.	1	1896–1896
Spillane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. neutral mo · 1892 1 sentence 1896In this regard the instruction is in substantial compliance with the ruling in Ridenhour v. Railroad, 102 Mo. 270 ; Spillane v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 555 ; Burger v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 238 , and must be held sufficient.	1	1896–1896

Where else courts name it

NY 23 (1933–2023) CA 19 (1902–2014) PA 13 (1922–2016) MO 9 (1896–2019) IL 9 (1903–2006) LA 8 (1963–2006) MI 8 (1921–2015) TX 8 (1935–2022) OK 7 (1974–1980) GA 7 (1938–1996) WY 7 (1970–2010) AL 5 (1888–2011) CT 5 (1980–2006) IA 5 (1967–1975) CO 5 (1898–2005) NV 5 (2019–2024) MS 4 (1966–1999) MA 4 (1976–2011) NE 4 (1945–1984) WV 3 (1938–1950) AR 3 (1928–1988) SC 2 (2012–2016) MN 2 (1957–1978) FL 2 (1955–1966) IN 2 (1912–1993) NJ 2 (1977–2000) OH 2 (2008–2020) KS 2 (1972–1974)

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