8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1873–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Findley v. City of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence2023Id. (“If the legislature can bar recovery entirely by the adoption of sovereign immunity, intending to close the floodgates to tort claims as in Winston, it follows that the legislature can choose for itself whether to open those floodgates widely or, as in this case, but a crack.”); see also Winston v. Reorganized Sch. | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Hansongreen1 sentence2013“The legislature has provided instruction on how reenactments are to be construed in section 1.120, RSMo....” Kelly v. Hanson, 984 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kanagawa v. State by and Through Freeman
green
2 sentences1997Id. 1997Id. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Eastern Oklahoma Building & Construction Trades Council v. Pitts
green
1 sentence2018Pitts , 82 P.3d at 1013 -14 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
green
1 sentence2013Section 1.120, RSMo 2000, provides that "[t]he provision of any law or statute which is reenacted, amended or revised, so far as they are the same as those of a prior law, shall be construed as a continuation of such law and not as a new enactment.” See also Citizens Bank and Trust Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 639 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.1982). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State ex rel. Hunt v. Bell
neutral
1 sentence1918The insertion, therefore, of such a general repealing clause adds nothing to the repealing effect of the act.” Other things being equal we have long accorded to the Legislature the privilege of classification in legislation upon the basis of population.- [State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 1 . c. 286; State ex inf. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1 ; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 1 . c. 442; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70 ; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 1 . c. 561; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 1 . c. 447.] Upon this consideration in the last analysis the whole case as presented turns | 1 | 1918–1918 |
McGrath v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1918The insertion, therefore, of such a general repealing clause adds nothing to the repealing effect of the act.” Other things being equal we have long accorded to the Legislature the privilege of classification in legislation upon the basis of population.- [State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 1 . c. 286; State ex inf. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1 ; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 1 . c. 442; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70 ; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 1 . c. 561; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 1 . c. 447.] Upon this consideration in the last analysis the whole case as presented turns | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State ex inf. Crow v. Continental Tobacco Co.
neutral
1 sentence1918The insertion, therefore, of such a general repealing clause adds nothing to the repealing effect of the act.” Other things being equal we have long accorded to the Legislature the privilege of classification in legislation upon the basis of population.- [State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 1 . c. 286; State ex inf. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1 ; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 1 . c. 442; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70 ; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 1 . c. 561; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 1 . c. 447.] Upon this consideration in the last analysis the whole case as presented turns | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State ex rel. Cave v. Tincher
green
1 sentence1918The insertion, therefore, of such a general repealing clause adds nothing to the repealing effect of the act.” Other things being equal we have long accorded to the Legislature the privilege of classification in legislation upon the basis of population.- [State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 1 . c. 286; State ex inf. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1 ; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 1 . c. 442; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70 ; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 1 . c. 561; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 1 . c. 447.] Upon this consideration in the last analysis the whole case as presented turns | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence1918The insertion, therefore, of such a general repealing clause adds nothing to the repealing effect of the act.” Other things being equal we have long accorded to the Legislature the privilege of classification in legislation upon the basis of population.- [State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 1 . c. 286; State ex inf. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1 ; State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 1 . c. 442; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70 ; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 1 . c. 561; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 1 . c. 447.] Upon this consideration in the last analysis the whole case as presented turns | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State v. Rich
neutral
1 sentence1892In State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393 , decided in 1855, in which it was sought to quash an indictment on the ground that the court in which it was found had no legal existence, for the reason that it was created by an act of the legislature in violation of a constitutional prohibition, such prohibition being dependent upon the existence of a certain state of facts, this court, speaking through Judge Leonard said: “It was the duty of the legislature to determine the matter for themselves before passing the act, and a proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government requires us to presume that | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Hill v. Higdon
green
1 sentence1873Higdon, 5 Ohio State, 243 , it is held by the Supreme Court of Ohio, that the first clause of the Constitution above referred to, furnishes the governing principle for all laws levying taxes for general revenue purposes, whether for State, county, township, or corporation purposes, and that it “requires a uniform rate per cent, to be levied upon all property, according to its true value in money.” It is further held, that no law could have been passed by the Legislature under that clause of the Constitution authorizing the cost of local improvements to be assessed against the adjoining propert | 1 | 1873–1873 |
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.