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 2 courts 1906–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Murphygreen1 sentence1981The applicable law appears in State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 731 [6, 7] (Mo.banc 1979): “The right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1972See also Douglas v. *374 Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). 1972See also Douglas v. *374 Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1997We thus hold that the trial court erred in permitting the State to use the deposition testimony of Dr. Hib-bard at Defendant’s trial. “[T]he right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.” Brookins, 478 S.W.2d at 373 (quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). 1997We thus hold that the trial court erred in permitting the State to use the deposition testimony of Dr. Hib-bard at Defendant’s trial. “[T]he right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.” Brookins, 478 S.W.2d at 373 (quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). | 6 | 1972–1997 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2003Jones, 583 S.W.2d at 563 . “‘[T]he right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.’ ” Glaese, 956 S.W.2d at 933 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Glaese
green
1 sentence2003Jones, 583 S.W.2d at 563 . “‘[T]he right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.’ ” Glaese, 956 S.W.2d at 933 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Brookins
green
1 sentence1997We thus hold that the trial court erred in permitting the State to use the deposition testimony of Dr. Hib-bard at Defendant’s trial. “[T]he right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.” Brookins, 478 S.W.2d at 373 (quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Merchants' National Bank v. Sells
neutral
1 sentence1906Bank v. Sells, 3 Mo. App. 85; Paretti v. Rebenack, 81 Mr. App. 494. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Green v. Worman
neutral
1 sentence1906From this, it essentially follows that in such case, the issue being only the scienter, the evil design, it is competent and proper for the defendant to show, in resisting such charge, that he did not know the representation was false and to this end he is permitted to show that he acted in good faith on reasonable appearances and was honestly mistaken, having good reason to believe in the truth of the representation when made; And it is upon this essential and fundamental principle of the law of fraud and deceit under the first phase of the scienter that rests the decision' of numerous of our | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Dunn v. White
green
1 sentence1906From this, it essentially follows that in such case, the issue being only the scienter, the evil design, it is competent and proper for the defendant to show, in resisting such charge, that he did not know the representation was false and to this end he is permitted to show that he acted in good faith on reasonable appearances and was honestly mistaken, having good reason to believe in the truth of the representation when made; And it is upon this essential and fundamental principle of the law of fraud and deceit under the first phase of the scienter that rests the decision' of numerous of our | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Walsh v. Morse
neutral
1 sentence1906From this, it essentially follows that in such case, the issue being only the scienter, the evil design, it is competent and proper for the defendant to show, in resisting such charge, that he did not know the representation was false and to this end he is permitted to show that he acted in good faith on reasonable appearances and was honestly mistaken, having good reason to believe in the truth of the representation when made; And it is upon this essential and fundamental principle of the law of fraud and deceit under the first phase of the scienter that rests the decision' of numerous of our | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.