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 1979–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Wesolich v. Goekegreen1 sentence2015Wesolich v. Goeke, 794 S.W.2d 692, 699 (Mo.App.E.D.1990), another judge must preside over a disqualification hearing if the judge presiding over the case may be called to testify. 7 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez, Also Known as Tomasgreen1 sentence2012See Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F.3d at 929 ; Panzardi-Alvarez, 879 F.2d at 980-82 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. Andrews
green
2 sentences2022As a result, this Court held that “the action of the trial court in ruling on the motion previously submitted before acting on the disqualification was not error.” Id. 2019Jenkins, 526 S.W.2d at 373 . | 3 | 2005–2022 |
Heller v. Aldi, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Similarly, in Heller, this Court held that the circuit court did not err in ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that had previously been taken under submission by the Court rather than ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for change of judge. 851 S.W.2d at 85 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence2017Anderson v. State, 402 S.W.3d 86 , 91 n.1 (Mo. banc 2013) . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jose E. Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States
green
1 sentence2012See Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F.3d at 929 ; Panzardi-Alvarez, 879 F.2d at 980-82 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Missouri Division of Employment Security v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission
green
1 sentence1988The phrase “more remunerative job” has been used to describe a job which yields to a worker more disposable income as well as a job which is “rewarding ... profitable, gainful.” Missouri Division of Employment Security, 647 S.W.2d at 895 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Haynes
neutral
2 sentences1979Accord: People v. Malone, 41 Ill.App.3d 914 , 354 N.E.2d 911 (1976); People v. Haynes, 21 Ill.App.3d 1 , 313 N.E.2d 601 (1974). 1979Accord: People v. Malone, 41 Ill.App.3d 914 , 354 N.E.2d 911 (1976); People v. Haynes, 21 Ill.App.3d 1 , 313 N.E.2d 601 (1974). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Reese
neutral
2 sentences1979This hearing on the revocation of probation cannot be considered separate from the original plea bargain proceedings. . . . [emphasis added] People v. Reese, 37 Ill.App.3d 820 , 347 N.E.2d 451 (1976), similarly holds that the probation revocation constitutes nothing more than a continuation of the original charge and plea proceedings, so that the only disqualification rule applicable at that stage of the case would be providing for disqualification for cause to the exclusion of the peremptory rule. 1979This hearing on the revocation of probation cannot be considered separate from the original plea bargain proceedings. . . . [emphasis added] People v. Reese, 37 Ill.App.3d 820 , 347 N.E.2d 451 (1976), similarly holds that the probation revocation constitutes nothing more than a continuation of the original charge and plea proceedings, so that the only disqualification rule applicable at that stage of the case would be providing for disqualification for cause to the exclusion of the peremptory rule. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Malone
neutral
2 sentences1979Accord: People v. Malone, 41 Ill.App.3d 914 , 354 N.E.2d 911 (1976); People v. Haynes, 21 Ill.App.3d 1 , 313 N.E.2d 601 (1974). 1979Accord: People v. Malone, 41 Ill.App.3d 914 , 354 N.E.2d 911 (1976); People v. Haynes, 21 Ill.App.3d 1 , 313 N.E.2d 601 (1974). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.