unless error in Missouri

9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1898–2009 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Armentroutgreen mo · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009In a direct appeal setting, plain error cannot serve as a basis for granting the defendant a new trial unless the error was “outcome determinative.” Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Armentrout, 8 S.W.3d 99, 110 (Mo. banc 1999).	1	1
Deck v. Stategreen mo · 2002 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009In a direct appeal setting, plain error cannot serve as a basis for granting the defendant a new trial unless the error was “outcome determinative.” Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Armentrout, 8 S.W.3d 99, 110 (Mo. banc 1999).	1	1
State v. Richardsgreen · 1933 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006State v. Richards, 334 Mo. 485 , 67 S.W.2d 58, 61 (1933); State v. Riley, 704 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Mo.App. 2006State v. Richards, 334 Mo. 485 , 67 S.W.2d 58, 61 (1933); State v. Riley, 704 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Mo.App.	1	1
State v. Rileygreen moctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006State v. Richards, 334 Mo. 485 , 67 S.W.2d 58, 61 (1933); State v. Riley, 704 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Mo.App. 2006State v. Richards, 334 Mo. 485 , 67 S.W.2d 58, 61 (1933); State v. Riley, 704 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Mo.App.	1	1
State v. Millergreen mo · 1983 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983). 2002State v. Miller, 650 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Mo. banc 1983).	1	1
Hefele v. National Super Markets, Inc.green moctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Rule 84.13(b); Hefele v. National Super Markets Inc., 748 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo.App.1988).	1	1
Rowe v. Mossgreen moctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988Rule 84.13(b); Rowe v. Moss, 656 S.W.2d 318, 322 (Mo.App.1983).	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 (19)

Case	Cited	Years
State ex rel. Dopkins v. Hitchcock neutral mo · 1885 2 sentences 1907Dopkins v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mq. 345; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .]’' The suggestion as to the amendment in the form of letters, as heretofore stated, furnishes no basis for the change or amendment of the bill of exceptions, and in fact the letter of the judge of the circuit court clearly indicates that there is no such condition of the record of the circuit court in Laclede county in respect to the filing of this bill of exceptions which would authorize the court 1902Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380 ; Bevin v. Powell, 83 Mo. 365 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Baker v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430 ; Donaldson v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 152 .] This being true, if the appeal must be taken before the motion for new trial is overruled, the appeal would be unavailing, for this court would not review the action of the trial court, that court not having had a chance to correct its own errors.	3	1898–1907
State v. Marshall neutral mo · 1865 2 sentences 1907Dopkins v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mq. 345; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .]’' The suggestion as to the amendment in the form of letters, as heretofore stated, furnishes no basis for the change or amendment of the bill of exceptions, and in fact the letter of the judge of the circuit court clearly indicates that there is no such condition of the record of the circuit court in Laclede county in respect to the filing of this bill of exceptions which would authorize the court 1898Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390 ; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345 ; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .	2	1898–1907
Mcirvine v. Thompson neutral mo · 1884 2 sentences 1907Dopkins v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mq. 345; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .]’' The suggestion as to the amendment in the form of letters, as heretofore stated, furnishes no basis for the change or amendment of the bill of exceptions, and in fact the letter of the judge of the circuit court clearly indicates that there is no such condition of the record of the circuit court in Laclede county in respect to the filing of this bill of exceptions which would authorize the court 1898Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390 ; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345 ; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .	2	1898–1907
Danforth v. Lindell Railway Co. neutral mo · 1894 2 sentences 1907Dopkins v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mq. 345; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .]’' The suggestion as to the amendment in the form of letters, as heretofore stated, furnishes no basis for the change or amendment of the bill of exceptions, and in fact the letter of the judge of the circuit court clearly indicates that there is no such condition of the record of the circuit court in Laclede county in respect to the filing of this bill of exceptions which would authorize the court 1898Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390 ; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345 ; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .	2	1898–1907
State v. Harvey neutral mo · 1891 2 sentences 1907Dopkins v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mq. 345; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .]’' The suggestion as to the amendment in the form of letters, as heretofore stated, furnishes no basis for the change or amendment of the bill of exceptions, and in fact the letter of the judge of the circuit court clearly indicates that there is no such condition of the record of the circuit court in Laclede county in respect to the filing of this bill of exceptions which would authorize the court 1898Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390 ; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345 ; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .	2	1898–1907
State v. Campbell green moctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2009“In the absence of an error of this magnitude, no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice exists.” Campbell, 122 S.W.3d at 740 .	1	2009–2009
Smith v. St. Louis Public Service Company green mo · 1955 1 sentence 1974Louis Public Service Co., 277 S.W.2d 498 (Mo.1955)], and that since at the voir dire the court expressly found that the answers of veniremen Conte and Teevan evinced no prejudice, the new trial order was not justified.	1	1974–1974
Saxton v. Smith green mo · 1872 1 sentence 1907No such entries can be made from the memory of the judge, nor on parol proof derived from other sources. [State v. Jeffors, 64 Mo. l. c. 378; Bank v. Allen, 68 Mo. l. c. 476; Belkin v. Rhodes, 76 Mo. l. c. 650; Saxton v. Smith, 50 Mo. 490 ; Fletcher v. Coombs, 58 Mo. l. c. 434; Wooldridge v. Quinn, 70 Mo. 370 ; Blize v. Castlio, 8 Mo. App. l. c. 294; Evans v. Fisher, 26 Mo. App. l. c. 546.] Judge Burgess in Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. l. c. 395, citing the authorities to support the an nouncement of the rule, said: “It has been uniformly held by this court that unless an exception be taken and p	1	1907–1907
Wooldridge v. Quinn green mo · 1879 1 sentence 1907No such entries can be made from the memory of the judge, nor on parol proof derived from other sources. [State v. Jeffors, 64 Mo. l. c. 378; Bank v. Allen, 68 Mo. l. c. 476; Belkin v. Rhodes, 76 Mo. l. c. 650; Saxton v. Smith, 50 Mo. 490 ; Fletcher v. Coombs, 58 Mo. l. c. 434; Wooldridge v. Quinn, 70 Mo. 370 ; Blize v. Castlio, 8 Mo. App. l. c. 294; Evans v. Fisher, 26 Mo. App. l. c. 546.] Judge Burgess in Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. l. c. 395, citing the authorities to support the an nouncement of the rule, said: “It has been uniformly held by this court that unless an exception be taken and p	1	1907–1907
Pogue v. State ex rel. Harbin neutral mo · 1850 1 sentence 1902Section 2248, Revised Statutes 1889, provides: “No such appeal shall be allowed unless: First, it be made during the term at which the judgment or decision appealed from was rendered,” etc. It is the settled law in this State that, except as to errors apparent on the face of the record proper, this court will not review errors of the trial court unless the error is called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial and the trial court thus given an opportunity to correct its error. [Pogue v. State, 13 Mo. 444 ; Howell v. Pitman, 5 Mo. 246 ; Warner v. Morin, 13 Mo. 455 ; St.	1	1902–1902
Warner v. Morin neutral mo · 1850 1 sentence 1902Section 2248, Revised Statutes 1889, provides: “No such appeal shall be allowed unless: First, it be made during the term at which the judgment or decision appealed from was rendered,” etc. It is the settled law in this State that, except as to errors apparent on the face of the record proper, this court will not review errors of the trial court unless the error is called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial and the trial court thus given an opportunity to correct its error. [Pogue v. State, 13 Mo. 444 ; Howell v. Pitman, 5 Mo. 246 ; Warner v. Morin, 13 Mo. 455 ; St.	1	1902–1902
Bevin v. Powell neutral mo · 1884 1 sentence 1902Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380 ; Bevin v. Powell, 83 Mo. 365 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Baker v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430 ; Donaldson v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 152 .] This being true, if the appeal must be taken before the motion for new trial is overruled, the appeal would be unavailing, for this court would not review the action of the trial court, that court not having had a chance to correct its own errors.	1	1902–1902
State ex rel. Howard County v. Burckhartt neutral mo · 1884 1 sentence 1902Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380 ; Bevin v. Powell, 83 Mo. 365 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Baker v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430 ; Donaldson v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 152 .] This being true, if the appeal must be taken before the motion for new trial is overruled, the appeal would be unavailing, for this court would not review the action of the trial court, that court not having had a chance to correct its own errors.	1	1902–1902
Baker v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad neutral mo · 1891 1 sentence 1902Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380 ; Bevin v. Powell, 83 Mo. 365 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Baker v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430 ; Donaldson v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 152 .] This being true, if the appeal must be taken before the motion for new trial is overruled, the appeal would be unavailing, for this court would not review the action of the trial court, that court not having had a chance to correct its own errors.	1	1902–1902
City of St. Louis v. Brooks neutral mo · 1891 1 sentence 1902Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380 ; Bevin v. Powell, 83 Mo. 365 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Baker v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430 ; Donaldson v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 152 .] This being true, if the appeal must be taken before the motion for new trial is overruled, the appeal would be unavailing, for this court would not review the action of the trial court, that court not having had a chance to correct its own errors.	1	1902–1902
Donaldson v. Thompson neutral mo · 1894 1 sentence 1902Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380 ; Bevin v. Powell, 83 Mo. 365 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Baker v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430 ; Donaldson v. Thompson, 120 Mo. 152 .] This being true, if the appeal must be taken before the motion for new trial is overruled, the appeal would be unavailing, for this court would not review the action of the trial court, that court not having had a chance to correct its own errors.	1	1902–1902
Howell v. Pitman neutral mo · 1838 1 sentence 1902Section 2248, Revised Statutes 1889, provides: “No such appeal shall be allowed unless: First, it be made during the term at which the judgment or decision appealed from was rendered,” etc. It is the settled law in this State that, except as to errors apparent on the face of the record proper, this court will not review errors of the trial court unless the error is called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial and the trial court thus given an opportunity to correct its error. [Pogue v. State, 13 Mo. 444 ; Howell v. Pitman, 5 Mo. 246 ; Warner v. Morin, 13 Mo. 455 ; St.	1	1902–1902
Wilson v. Haxby neutral mo · 1882 1 sentence 1898Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390 ; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345 ; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .	1	1898–1898
Ross v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad green mo · 1897 1 sentence 1898Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390 ; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529 ; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231 ; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345 ; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196 ; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 ; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647 ; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 .	1	1898–1898

Where else courts name it

NM 53 (2010–2026) WV 48 (1949–2026) MN 38 (1986–2026) NC 24 (1903–2026) OK 16 (1925–2007) MI 15 (1994–2026) WA 13 (1973–2022) PA 12 (1969–2014) TX 12 (1911–2020) TN 10 (2002–2021) MO 9 (1898–2009) NY 9 (1976–2016) MA 8 (1973–2021) IL 6 (1989–2025) CA 5 (1955–2022) MD 5 (1975–2007) NJ 4 (2019–2022) WI 4 (1908–2012) CO 3 (2004–2019) LA 3 (1965–1988) MT 3 (1931–2004) KS 3 (1896–1976) GA 3 (1990–2016) CT 3 (1935–1974) NV 2 (1973–2022) IN 2 (1947–1999) OH 2 (1999–2022) FL 2 (1965–1968) OR 2 (1998–2012)

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