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.
8 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1949–2013 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Deck v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Deck, 68 S.W.3d at 428 . 2013Deck, 68 S.W.3d at 429 . | 1 | 1 |
Moloney v. Boatmen's Bankgreen2 sentences1984We paraphrase the rule set out in Moloney v. Boatmen’s Bank, 288 Mo. 435 , 232 S.W. 133, 140 (1921) and cited in Grindstaff, supra at 74 , in this manner: When an erroneous defense instruction is given by the court and not by the defendant and the trial results in favor of the party against whom that instruction was directed, the presumption is that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial. 1984We paraphrase the rule set out in Moloney v. Boatmen’s Bank, 288 Mo. 435 , 232 S.W. 133, 140 (1921) and cited in Grindstaff, supra at 74 , in this manner: When an erroneous defense instruction is given by the court and not by the defendant and the trial results in favor of the party against whom that instruction was directed, the presumption is that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Westfall
green
1 sentence2013In analyzing the propriety of plain error review, the Court acknowledged that, under State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002), failure to submit a self-defense instruction supported by the evidence constitutes reversible error under plain error review. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Bolden
green
1 sentence2013However, because Emily proffered the defective instruction, the Court declined to review for plain error, holding that the trial court does not have “a sua sponte duty to correct erroneous instructions proffered by the complaining party.” Id. at 806 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Sheinbein v. First Boston Corp.
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 878 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Eyberg v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence1997Appellant Director of Revenue contends that under those holdings, the trial court, erred. 1 In Eyberg . this District determined that there was no prejudice by a defective warning because the driver submitted to the test. 935 S.W.2d at 378 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Grindstaff v. Tygett
green
1 sentence1984We paraphrase the rule set out in Moloney v. Boatmen’s Bank, 288 Mo. 435 , 232 S.W. 133, 140 (1921) and cited in Grindstaff, supra at 74 , in this manner: When an erroneous defense instruction is given by the court and not by the defendant and the trial results in favor of the party against whom that instruction was directed, the presumption is that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Arnel ex rel. Luadzers v. Roettgen
green
1 sentence1983Arnel v. Roettgen, supra at 23 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Restaurant Industries, Inc. v. Lum's, Inc.
green
1 sentence1979At one place in its brief defendant refers to Instruction No. 3 as “an affirmative defense instruction or an affirmative converse instruction.” Later in its brief defendant, arguing that Instruction No. 3 is “a pure MAI 33.05 affirmative converse” instruction, relies on Restaurant Industries, Inc. v. Lum’s, Inc., 495 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.App.1973) for the proposition that it is not error for the trial court to fail to modify MAI 3.01 to tell the jury that the burden was on defendant to cause the jury to believe the proposition necessary to support defendant’s affirmative converse, also called a Thir | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Forbes v. Dunnavant
green
2 sentences1955Probst v. Heisinger Motor Co., Mo.App., 16 S.W.2d 1005 ; Forbes v. Dunnavant, 198 Mo. 193 , 95 S.W. 934 ; Labatt’s Master and Servant (2d Ed.), Vol. 4, p. 4573, Sec. 1533. 1955Probst v. Heisinger Motor Co., Mo.App., 16 S.W.2d 1005 ; Forbes v. Dunnavant, 198 Mo. 193 , 95 S.W. 934 ; Labatt’s Master and Servant (2d Ed.), Vol. 4, p. 4573, Sec. 1533. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
McDonald Ex Rel. Baber v. Kansas City Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1949McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 332 Mo. 356 , 59 S.W.2d 37 ; Jenkins v. Missouri State Life Ins. 1949McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 332 Mo. 356 , 59 S.W.2d 37 ; Jenkins v. Missouri State Life Ins. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Walton v. A. B. C. Fireproof Warehouse Co.
green
2 sentences1949Fireproof Warehouse Co., 233 Mo.App. 693 , 124 S.W.2d 584 . [9] But it is also the rule that if the instruction states the required elements indefinitely or ambiguously, or in language which might be misleading, then an instruction on the part of the defendant, which clearly and specifically requires the finding of the essential elements does not conflict with plaintiff's instruction but instead makes it clear and definite, and the giving of the defective instruction is not error. 1949Fireproof Warehouse Co., 233 Mo.App. 693 , 124 S.W.2d 584 . [9] But it is also the rule that if the instruction states the required elements indefinitely or ambiguously, or in language which might be misleading, then an instruction on the part of the defendant, which clearly and specifically requires the finding of the essential elements does not conflict with plaintiff's instruction but instead makes it clear and definite, and the giving of the defective instruction is not error. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.