8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 5 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. Stategreen1 sentence2024Although it is true, as the State asserts, that an issue decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a post-conviction proceeding on a theory of ineffective assistance of counsel, “denial of a plain error claim is not dispositive of the question whether 9 counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve the issue as to which plain error was not found.” Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 428 (Mo. banc 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2024See Riley v. Dir. of Revenue, 378 S.W.3d 432 , 443 n.13 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (once evidence is admitted at trial without proper objection, fact-finder cannot be reversed for relying on it). | 1 | 1 |
Wong v. Wonggreen2 sentences2023“Mere conclusions and the failure to develop an argument with support from legal authority preserve nothing for review.” Wong, 391 S.W.3d at 919 (citation omitted). 2023See id. 7 The argument section of King’s brief is so defective it requires us to hypothesize about King’s arguments and precedential support for those arguments, and, as a result, we cannot reach the merits of his appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Murphygreen2 sentences1978At common law it “was one of the ancient high prerogative writs of right for the King by which inquiry was made into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise an office, right or privilege granted by the Crown, and by which a usurper of such royal franchise was ousted.” Mo. Bar CLE, Appellate Practice and Extraordinary Remedies—Quo Warranto at 10-2 (2d ed. 1974); See also State v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484 , 148 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1941). 1978At common law it “was one of the ancient high prerogative writs of right for the King by which inquiry was made into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise an office, right or privilege granted by the Crown, and by which a usurper of such royal franchise was ousted.” Mo. Bar CLE, Appellate Practice and Extraordinary Remedies—Quo Warranto at 10-2 (2d ed. 1974); See also State v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484 , 148 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1941). | 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. Nelson
green
1 sentence2023The record shows that King’s defense was misidentification, and any variance between the charging document and the evidence presented at trial “was immaterial in view of [King’s] theory of defense.” See Nelson, 334 S.W.3d at 197 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
McNeal v. State
green
1 sentence2022However, 4 While King's brief relies almost entirely on the facts in McNeal and claims that they necessitate a hearing in his own case, we note that McNeal had "alleged that counsel failed to request [the lesser] instruction and that this failure was not justified by any strategy or reason other than inadvertence…" McNeal, 412 S.W.3d at 889-90 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Detling v. Edelbrock
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, we reject Respondent’s contention the Missouri Supreme Court implicitly adopted the King in custodia legis requirement in Detling, 671 S.W.2d 265 , by favorably citing to King and because the Detling tenants effectively complied with the King requirement by paying their rent to a court-appointed receiver. 2016Detling, 671 S.W.2d at 270 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
King v. Jack Cooper Transport Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2012However, on remand following appeal to this court, King v. Jack Cooper Transport Co., 708 S.W.2d 194 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.