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 1953–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crystal Tire Co. v. Home Service Oil Co.green2 sentences1979MAI 2.02 “Notes on Use.” In support of this assignment we are cited to Crystal Tire Co. v. Home Service Oil Co., 525 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. banc 1975). 1977In Crystal Tire Co. v. Home Service Oil Co., 525 S.W.2d 317, 321 [4] (Mo. banc 1975) the failure to read pattern instruction MAI No. 2.02 — “Facts Not Assumed” — immediately before the form of verdict instruction, was held to be error and presumptively prejudicial because it violated the Notes on Use to that instruction. | 1 | 2 |
Lindsey Masonry Co. v. Jenkins & Associates Inc.green2 sentences2007See Lindsey Masonry Co., v. Jenkins & Associates, Inc., 897 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo.App.1995); Rule 70.03, Missouri Court Rules (2007). 2007See Lindsey Masonry Co., v. Jenkins & Associates, Inc., 897 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo.App.1995); Rule 70.03, Missouri Court Rules (2007). | 1 | 1 |
McCory v. Knowlesgreen1 sentence1977In Chapman v. Bradley, 478 S.W.2d 873 [1] (Mo.App.1972) the omission from MAI No. 2.01 of eleven words in paragraph 8 of the instruction referring to the right of the trial jury to consider the interest of the witness in the outcome of the suit, and the relation of the witness to the parties to the suit in considering the weight and value of the testimony of any witness was held to be “presumptively prejudicial unless it is made perfectly clear to us no prejudice could have resulted.” *894 McCory v. Knowles, 478 S.W.2d 682, 685 [5] (Mo.App.1972) also reached the same conclusion with respect to | 1 | 1 |
Brannaker v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc.green1 sentence1975This court has held that it was prejudicial error to fail to give MAI 2.02 (Brannaker v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 428 S.W.2d 524, 537 [17— 20] (Mo.1968)) and has required strict adherence to the "Notes on Use” (Davis v. St. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnstonegreen1 sentence1962See State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 199 [11]; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 787 [2]; State v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 271 S.W.2d 557 [4], Instruction No. 2 was the principal verdict directing instruction, and it is in the form and substance which has been approved by this court in such cases as State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 848 [5]; State v. Grant, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 332 [6-8]; and State v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 266 [16], Defendant also assigns as error the fact that in Instruction No. 2 and also in the form of verdict instruction he was referred to as “James Butler alias | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1961State v. Williams, Mo., 343 S.W.2d 58, 60 [3-7]; State v. Chamineak, Mo., 343 S.W.2d 153, 163 [20], and cases cited in the above cases. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chamineakgreen1 sentence1961State v. Williams, Mo., 343 S.W.2d 58, 60 [3-7]; State v. Chamineak, Mo., 343 S.W.2d 153, 163 [20], and cases cited in the above cases. | 1 | 1 |
United Iron Works v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co.green2 sentences1953United Iron Works, Inc. v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co., 317 Mo. 125 , 295 S.W. 109, 115 [4, 5]; Cosgrove v. Stange, 194 Mo.App. 14 , 183 S.W. 691, 692 [2, 3]; Nowell v. Mode, 132 Mo.App. 232 , 111 S.W. 641, 644 ; Tuttle v. Chostner, Mo.App., 260 S.W. 819 , 821[6]; Ragsdale v. Young, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 514 , 516[2]; Staples v. Dent, Mo.App., 220 S.W.2d 791 , 792[1, 2]. 1953United Iron Works, Inc. v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co., 317 Mo. 125 , 295 S.W. 109, 115 [4, 5]; Cosgrove v. Stange, 194 Mo.App. 14 , 183 S.W. 691, 692 [2, 3]; Nowell v. Mode, 132 Mo.App. 232 , 111 S.W. 641, 644 ; Tuttle v. Chostner, Mo.App., 260 S.W. 819 , 821[6]; Ragsdale v. Young, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 514 , 516[2]; Staples v. Dent, Mo.App., 220 S.W.2d 791 , 792[1, 2]. | 1 | 1 |
Cosgrove v. Stangegreen2 sentences1953United Iron Works, Inc. v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co., 317 Mo. 125 , 295 S.W. 109, 115 [4, 5]; Cosgrove v. Stange, 194 Mo.App. 14 , 183 S.W. 691, 692 [2, 3]; Nowell v. Mode, 132 Mo.App. 232 , 111 S.W. 641, 644 ; Tuttle v. Chostner, Mo.App., 260 S.W. 819 , 821[6]; Ragsdale v. Young, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 514 , 516[2]; Staples v. Dent, Mo.App., 220 S.W.2d 791 , 792[1, 2]. 1953United Iron Works, Inc. v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co., 317 Mo. 125 , 295 S.W. 109, 115 [4, 5]; Cosgrove v. Stange, 194 Mo.App. 14 , 183 S.W. 691, 692 [2, 3]; Nowell v. Mode, 132 Mo.App. 232 , 111 S.W. 641, 644 ; Tuttle v. Chostner, Mo.App., 260 S.W. 819 , 821[6]; Ragsdale v. Young, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 514 , 516[2]; Staples v. Dent, Mo.App., 220 S.W.2d 791 , 792[1, 2]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman ex rel. Chapman v. Bradley
neutral
1 sentence1977In Chapman v. Bradley, 478 S.W.2d 873 [1] (Mo.App.1972) the omission from MAI No. 2.01 of eleven words in paragraph 8 of the instruction referring to the right of the trial jury to consider the interest of the witness in the outcome of the suit, and the relation of the witness to the parties to the suit in considering the weight and value of the testimony of any witness was held to be “presumptively prejudicial unless it is made perfectly clear to us no prejudice could have resulted.” *894 McCory v. Knowles, 478 S.W.2d 682, 685 [5] (Mo.App.1972) also reached the same conclusion with respect to | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Wente v. Shaver
green
2 sentences1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an 1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Heuer v. John R. Thompson Co.
green
1 sentence1963Thompson Co., Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 980 . 1 (See, also, King v. City of St. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Stroud v. Masek
green
2 sentences1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an 1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Hotchner v. Liebowits
green
2 sentences1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an 1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Stiles v. Union Terminal Co.
neutral
2 sentences1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an 1963In its pertinent portion it read: “We the jury find the issues for the defendant and against plaintiff -. - Foreman.” However, in seeking to avoid the effect of not having objected to the form of verdict instruction, and not having offered any instruction on nominal damages, plaintiffs assert Instruction No. 2f given over their objection, under our law was required to direct at least a nominal verdict for each of plaintiffs, citing Stroud v. Masek, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 47 ; Hotchner v. Liebowits, Mo.App., 341 S.W.2d 319 ; Wente v. Shaver, 350 Mo.Sup. 1143, 169 1 S.W.2d 947, 145 A.L.R. 1176 ; an | 1 | 1963–1963 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1962See State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 199 [11]; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 787 [2]; State v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 271 S.W.2d 557 [4], Instruction No. 2 was the principal verdict directing instruction, and it is in the form and substance which has been approved by this court in such cases as State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 848 [5]; State v. Grant, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 332 [6-8]; and State v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 266 [16], Defendant also assigns as error the fact that in Instruction No. 2 and also in the form of verdict instruction he was referred to as “James Butler alias | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Weed
green
1 sentence1962See State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 199 [11]; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 787 [2]; State v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 271 S.W.2d 557 [4], Instruction No. 2 was the principal verdict directing instruction, and it is in the form and substance which has been approved by this court in such cases as State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 848 [5]; State v. Grant, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 332 [6-8]; and State v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 266 [16], Defendant also assigns as error the fact that in Instruction No. 2 and also in the form of verdict instruction he was referred to as “James Butler alias | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1962See State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 199 [11]; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 787 [2]; State v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 271 S.W.2d 557 [4], Instruction No. 2 was the principal verdict directing instruction, and it is in the form and substance which has been approved by this court in such cases as State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 848 [5]; State v. Grant, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 332 [6-8]; and State v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 266 [16], Defendant also assigns as error the fact that in Instruction No. 2 and also in the form of verdict instruction he was referred to as “James Butler alias | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Grant
green
1 sentence1962See State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 199 [11]; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 787 [2]; State v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 271 S.W.2d 557 [4], Instruction No. 2 was the principal verdict directing instruction, and it is in the form and substance which has been approved by this court in such cases as State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 848 [5]; State v. Grant, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 332 [6-8]; and State v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 266 [16], Defendant also assigns as error the fact that in Instruction No. 2 and also in the form of verdict instruction he was referred to as “James Butler alias | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence1962See State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 199 [11]; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 787 [2]; State v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 271 S.W.2d 557 [4], Instruction No. 2 was the principal verdict directing instruction, and it is in the form and substance which has been approved by this court in such cases as State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 848 [5]; State v. Grant, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 332 [6-8]; and State v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 266 [16], Defendant also assigns as error the fact that in Instruction No. 2 and also in the form of verdict instruction he was referred to as “James Butler alias | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Nowell v. Mode
neutral
2 sentences1953United Iron Works, Inc. v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co., 317 Mo. 125 , 295 S.W. 109, 115 [4, 5]; Cosgrove v. Stange, 194 Mo.App. 14 , 183 S.W. 691, 692 [2, 3]; Nowell v. Mode, 132 Mo.App. 232 , 111 S.W. 641, 644 ; Tuttle v. Chostner, Mo.App., 260 S.W. 819 , 821[6]; Ragsdale v. Young, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 514 , 516[2]; Staples v. Dent, Mo.App., 220 S.W.2d 791 , 792[1, 2]. 1953United Iron Works, Inc. v. Twin City Ice & Creamery Co., 317 Mo. 125 , 295 S.W. 109, 115 [4, 5]; Cosgrove v. Stange, 194 Mo.App. 14 , 183 S.W. 691, 692 [2, 3]; Nowell v. Mode, 132 Mo.App. 232 , 111 S.W. 641, 644 ; Tuttle v. Chostner, Mo.App., 260 S.W. 819 , 821[6]; Ragsdale v. Young, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 514 , 516[2]; Staples v. Dent, Mo.App., 220 S.W.2d 791 , 792[1, 2]. | 1 | 1953–1953 |