62 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2025 2 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. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2005In so holding, the Court noted that the motion, “despite its odd style, places before the trial court allegations of error.” Id. 2000In so finding, the court stated that the “motion claimfed] that the trial court committed an error of law in sustaining the ... motion for summary judgment” and “[it] place[d] before the trial court allegations of error.” Id. | 2 | 5 |
Skelton v. General Candy Co.green2 sentences1999Skelton v. General Candy Co., 539 S.W.2d 605, 610 (Mo.App. 1992Skelton v. General Candy Co., 539 S.W.2d 605, 610 (Mo.App.1976). | 2 | 3 |
Bartsch v. BMC Farms, LLCgreen2 sentences2021Co., 585 S.W.3d 839 , 842 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (quoting Bartsch v. BMC Farms, LLC, 573 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)). 2019Although “[t]he failure to comply substantially with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for review and constitutes grounds for dismissing the appeal,” “we prefer to resolve appeals on their merits, especially when we are able to discern the gist of the appellant's allegations of error.” Bartsch v. BMC Farms, LLC, 573 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Pasley v. Newtongreen2 sentences1978As stated in Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Mo.App.1970), the allegations of error made to the trial court must be “sufficiently definite to direct the court’s attention to the particular acts or rulings asserted to be erroneous.” The purpose of these rules is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct its errors without the delay, expense and hardships of an appeal. 1976The allegations of error made to the trial court must be “sufficiently definite to direct the court’s attention to the particular acts or rulings asserted to be erroneous.” Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Mo.App.1970). | 2 | 2 |
Ezell v. Kansas Citygreen2 sentences1955See Ezell v. Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 248 ; Fosmire v. Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 252 . 1954See Ezell v. Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 248 ; Fosmire v. Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 252 . | 2 | 2 |
Massman Construction Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commissiongreen2 sentences2005The Court reiterated this principle in Massman Construction Co. v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 914 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Mo. banc 1996), noting “the general tendency of courts to construe improperly titled or crudely fashioned after-trial motions liberally as motions for new trial.” 7 To the extent that Ron Woods and other cases from this court can be read to require a party to cite the specific rule under which its substantively-sufficient after-trial motion is made or else the motion will not be considered or reviewed as an authorized after-trial motion, they appear to be in c 2000The Court noted that there is a “general tendency ... to construe improperly titled or crudely fashioned after-trial motions liberally as motions for new trial.” Massman, 914 S.W.2d at 803 . | 1 | 3 |
Hoeper v. Lileygreen2 sentences2019Hoeper v. Liley , 527 S.W.3d 151 , 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). 2019Hoeper v. Liley, 527 S.W.3d 151, 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). | 1 | 2 |
Zakibe v. Ahrens & McCarron, Inc.green1 sentence2019W.D. 2004) (quoting Zakibe v. Ahrens & McCarron, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 373, 387 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Gill Construction, Inc. v. 18th & Vine Authoritygreen1 sentence2019In order to properly raise an issue on appeal, the allegations of error must be “‘based upon the theory voiced in the objection at trial and a defendant cannot expand or change on appeal the objection as made.’” Gill Const., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Authority, 157 S.W.3d 699, 718 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Timmons v. Timmonsgreen1 sentence2017See Timmons v. Timmons, 132 S.W.3d 906, 916-17 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2014State v. Barnes, 245 S.W.3d 885, 898 (Mo.App.E.D.2008). | 1 | 1 |
In Re SLNgreen1 sentence2013“Multiple contentions not related to a single issue may not be grouped together in a single point relied on.” In re S.L.N., 8 S.W.3d 916, 921 (Mo.App.S.D.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Schniedersgreen1 sentence2013In re Schnieders, 178 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Mo.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Kahn v. Kahngreen1 sentence2007See Kahn v. Kahn, 839 S.W.2d 327, 330 (Mo.Ct.App.E.D.1992). 2 Each requests a different sort of relief, even though the support for the requests may come from the same allegations of error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Masseygreen1 sentence2006State v. Massey, 156 S.W.3d 789, 790 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Laskergreen1 sentence2001It is, therefore, appropriate to treat it as a motion for new trial filed pursuant to Rule 81.05.” Taylor v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 390, 393 (Mo. banc 1993); accord Lasker, 12 S.W.3d at 717 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen1 sentence1995State v. Harris, 870 S.W.2d 798, 805 (Mo. banc 1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bernardgreen1 sentence1993Bernard, 849 S.W.2d at 12-13 (Mo.1993). 1 We note that defendant did not object to the admission of the allegedly improper testimony at trial, nor did he properly raise the allegations of error in his motion for new trial. | 1 | 1 |
Lake in the Woods Apartment v. Carsongreen1 sentence1991It held, citing Lake in the Woods Apartment v. Carson, 651 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Mo.App.1983), “that no equitable defenses, including estoppel are available in unlawful detainer actions” and that the trial court was therefore not in error in refusing to submit defendant’s estoppel defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Courtney v. Emmonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sours v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schneider v. Finleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rotert v. Peabody Coal Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bruecknergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ludwiggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rasco v. Rascogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Duensinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Umfleetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gorzel v. Orlamandergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ward v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Carron
green
2 sentences1986Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d at 32 . 1986Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d at 32 . | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Conser v. Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co.
green
2 sentences1972Co., Mo., 266 S.W.2d 587 [1], “ . . .we will rule this case on the merits since we are able to determine from the whole brief the allegations of error and the points made under them, which present important questions . . . ” To the merits. 1955Co., supra, 266 S.W.2d at page 589 , the Supreme Court stated this law: “Plaintiff’s brief does not comply with Rule 1.08 (a) (3), 42 V.A.M.S., but we will rule this case on the merits since we are able to determine from the whole brief the allegations of error and the points made under them, which present important questions, and because we have decided other recent cases on the merits where the situation was similar. | 2 | 1955–1972 |
Ambrose v. M. F. A. Co-Operative Ass'n of St. Elizabeth
green
2 sentences1958Elizabeth, Mo., 266 S.W.2d 647 , at page 650, said in part: “The requirements of Rule 1.08 most frequently violated are those in (a) (3) providing that appellant’s brief shall contain: ‘The points relied on, which shall specify the allegations of error, with citation of authorities thereunder’. * * * many briefs have ‘points’ which are only allegations of error (stated as in the motion for new trial) but do not state any reasons why it is contended that the Court erred in making the ruling which is said to be erroneous. 1957F. A. Co-Op. Ass’n, Mo., 266 S.W.2d 647 , our Supreme Court En Banc, in clear, understandable, and emphatic language, announced the exact and precise meaning of Rule 1.08(a) (3). | 2 | 1957–1958 |
Kleinschmidt v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co.
neutral
2 sentences1951The plaintiffs’ “Statement Of Errors And Points And Authorities In Support Thereof” consists of a series of abstract statements of law followed by the citation of cases and it is not demonstrated in what manner they are concerned with this case and they do not by any means “specify the allegations of error.” Kleinschmidt v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 350 Mo. 250 , 165 S. W. (2) 620. 1951The plaintiffs’ “Statement Of Errors And Points And Authorities In Support Thereof” consists of a series of abstract statements of law followed by the citation of cases and it is not demonstrated in what manner they are concerned with this case and they do not by any means “specify the allegations of error.” Kleinschmidt v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 350 Mo. 250 , 165 S. W. (2) 620. | 2 | 1951–1951 |
Deborah Barkley v. McKeever Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Price Chopper
green
1 sentence2025Charles Auto Mart, Inc., 690 S.W.3d 495 , 500-01 (Mo.App. 2024) (quoting Barkley, 456 S.W.3d at 839 ). “[I]n order to properly raise an issue on appeal, the allegations of error must be based upon the theory voiced in the objection at trial and a [party on appeal] cannot expand or change on appeal the objection as made.” Hale v. Burlington-N. & Santa Fe Ry. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Special Fund v. Francis
green
1 sentence2019Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641 , 643 (Ky. 1986). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wolfe
green
1 sentence2002While this court has previously noted that, in some instances, repeated and persistent references to “truthful testimony” could be sufficiently pervasive as to imply to the jury that the accuracy of the witness’ testimony has been verified by the State, Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 54 , having ex gratia considered the overall effect of the comments made by the State, we find that the State’s references to the plea agreement were not sufficiently pervasive to warrant a finding of error on the part of the trial court. 5 See Ringo, 30 S.W.3d at 822-24 ; Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d at 255-57 ; Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 5 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Ringo
green
1 sentence2002While this court has previously noted that, in some instances, repeated and persistent references to “truthful testimony” could be sufficiently pervasive as to imply to the jury that the accuracy of the witness’ testimony has been verified by the State, Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 54 , having ex gratia considered the overall effect of the comments made by the State, we find that the State’s references to the plea agreement were not sufficiently pervasive to warrant a finding of error on the part of the trial court. 5 See Ringo, 30 S.W.3d at 822-24 ; Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d at 255-57 ; Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 5 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Dudley
green
2 sentences2002While this court has previously noted that, in some instances, repeated and persistent references to “truthful testimony” could be sufficiently pervasive as to imply to the jury that the accuracy of the witness’ testimony has been verified by the State, Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 54 , having ex gratia considered the overall effect of the comments made by the State, we find that the State’s references to the plea agreement were not sufficiently pervasive to warrant a finding of error on the part of the trial court. 5 See Ringo, 30 S.W.3d at 822-24 ; Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d at 255-57 ; Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 5 2002While this court has previously noted that, in some instances, repeated and persistent references to “truthful testimony” could be sufficiently pervasive as to imply to the jury that the accuracy of the witness’ testimony has been verified by the State, Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 54 , having ex gratia considered the overall effect of the comments made by the State, we find that the State’s references to the plea agreement were not sufficiently pervasive to warrant a finding of error on the part of the trial court. 5 See Ringo, 30 S.W.3d at 822-24 ; Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d at 255-57 ; Dudley, 51 S.W.3d at 5 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wiedower v. ACF Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001“Where an employer denies the allegations in an employee’s claim, it also necessarily denies liability for medical aid to the employee, and the employee may be entitled to an award for the cost of medical services.” Wiedower, 657 S.W.2d at 74 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Murphy v. Shur
green
1 sentence2000Shur, 6 S.W.3d at 210 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. O'NEAL green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Poteat v. Poteat green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Zeitvogel green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Chambers v. City of Kansas City green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Fields v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency, Inc. v. Hemphill green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Smith v. Smith green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Schenberg v. Schenberg green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Riggs v. A. P. Green Fire Brick Co. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Chance v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Brawner v. Brawner green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Mueller v. Mueller green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| In Re Alexander's Estate green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Commonwealth ex rel. Hensel v. Sturtevant neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Goldstein v. Fendelman green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Shepherd v. Woodson green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Knox v. Weathers green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Vogt v. Woody green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Wipfler v. Basler green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Beil v. Gaertner green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Barnett v. Sweringen neutral | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Gardine v. Cottey green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Cruce v. Gulf, Mobile Ohio Railroad Co. green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Jackson v. Thompson green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.