8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences2025White v. Marsh, 646 S.W.2d 357 , 362 n.7 (Mo. banc 1983) (citing Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1967) (“defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction, prior to raising the jurisdictional issue, and was held to have entered a general appearance”); Estate of Hutchison v. Massood, 494 S.W.3d 595 , 599 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (full participation in litigation without any objection to lack of service); Crouch v. Crouch, 641 S.W.2d 86, 94 (Mo. banc 1982) (finding the holding in Sega 6 Although not raised in White’s brief, this Court 1983See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pehnor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction, prior to raising the jurisdictional issue, and was held to have entered a general appearance. . | 2 | 2 |
Crouch v. Crouchgreen1 sentence2025White v. Marsh, 646 S.W.2d 357 , 362 n.7 (Mo. banc 1983) (citing Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1967) (“defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction, prior to raising the jurisdictional issue, and was held to have entered a general appearance”); Estate of Hutchison v. Massood, 494 S.W.3d 595 , 599 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (full participation in litigation without any objection to lack of service); Crouch v. Crouch, 641 S.W.2d 86, 94 (Mo. banc 1982) (finding the holding in Sega 6 Although not raised in White’s brief, this Court | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shockleygreen1 sentence2019See Shockley , 410 S.W.3d at 191 -96 . | 1 | 1 |
Oakley v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Oakley v. State, 715 P.2d 1374, 1379 (Wyo. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quinngreen1 sentence1986In fact, after conducting a lengthy inquiry, which nearly exactly paralleled the inquiry prescribed in the appendix to State v. Quinn, 565 S.W.2d 665, 676-77 (Mo.App.1978), the court was satisfied that the defendant was capable of conducting his own defense. | 1 | 1 |
Knowles ex rel. Cheatum v. Goswickgreen1 sentence1972The matter then descends to that of the giving of repetitive or multiple instructions on the same subject, long held not to be in itself reversible error. “ ‘[R]ep- etitious instructions will not constitute reversible error unless it plainly appears that they were in fact calculated to confuse or mislead.’ ” Dudeck v. Ellis, Mo., 399 S.W.2d 80, 93 [8-10]; and Knowles v. Goswick, Mo., 476 S.W.2d 563, 567 [4], And in connection with the matter complained of, see Rule 69.02, V.A.M.R., relating to “Handbook of Information for Jurors” wherein the court may in its discretion provide prospective juro | 1 | 1 |
Dudeck v. Ellisgreen1 sentence1972The matter then descends to that of the giving of repetitive or multiple instructions on the same subject, long held not to be in itself reversible error. “ ‘[R]ep- etitious instructions will not constitute reversible error unless it plainly appears that they were in fact calculated to confuse or mislead.’ ” Dudeck v. Ellis, Mo., 399 S.W.2d 80, 93 [8-10]; and Knowles v. Goswick, Mo., 476 S.W.2d 563, 567 [4], And in connection with the matter complained of, see Rule 69.02, V.A.M.R., relating to “Handbook of Information for Jurors” wherein the court may in its discretion provide prospective juro | 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 Ex Rel. White v. Marsh
green
1 sentence2025White v. Marsh, 646 S.W.2d 357 , 362 n.7 (Mo. banc 1983) (citing Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1967) (“defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction, prior to raising the jurisdictional issue, and was held to have entered a general appearance”); Estate of Hutchison v. Massood, 494 S.W.3d 595 , 599 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (full participation in litigation without any objection to lack of service); Crouch v. Crouch, 641 S.W.2d 86, 94 (Mo. banc 1982) (finding the holding in Sega 6 Although not raised in White’s brief, this Court | 1 | 2025–2025 |
The Estate of Donald Elmo Hutchison and George Massood, Interstate Signs, Inc., and Lynn Oak Court Company, L.P. v. Lester G. Massood
green
1 sentence2025White v. Marsh, 646 S.W.2d 357 , 362 n.7 (Mo. banc 1983) (citing Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1967) (“defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction, prior to raising the jurisdictional issue, and was held to have entered a general appearance”); Estate of Hutchison v. Massood, 494 S.W.3d 595 , 599 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (full participation in litigation without any objection to lack of service); Crouch v. Crouch, 641 S.W.2d 86, 94 (Mo. banc 1982) (finding the holding in Sega 6 Although not raised in White’s brief, this Court | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Anderson v. Steurer
green
1 sentence2002In Anderson v. Steurer, 391 S.W.2d 839 (Mo.1965), the Supreme Court of Missouri tacitly approved the Menefee decision. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State Ex Rel. A. M. T. v. Weinstein
green
1 sentence1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Johnson v. Fire Assn. of Phila.
green
2 sentences1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction 1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Mahan v. Baile
green
2 sentences1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction 1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Greenwood v. Schnake
green
1 sentence1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Scott
green
1 sentence1983It is to be noted that there was a lengthy inquiry over objection in Newman which led the reviewing court to conclude that the prosecutor’s inquiry had gone too far, and in reaching this conclusion, the court declared at 281-82: “[T]he general prejudicial effect of which was pointed out in State v. Mobley, 369 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.1963), and quoted with approval in State v. Scott [ 459 S.W.2d 321 ], supra [was]: ‘All lawyers and judges know that a jury’s knowledge of prior convictions is, in itself, a most damning thing in the trial of a criminal case. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Mobley
green
1 sentence1983It is to be noted that there was a lengthy inquiry over objection in Newman which led the reviewing court to conclude that the prosecutor’s inquiry had gone too far, and in reaching this conclusion, the court declared at 281-82: “[T]he general prejudicial effect of which was pointed out in State v. Mobley, 369 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.1963), and quoted with approval in State v. Scott [ 459 S.W.2d 321 ], supra [was]: ‘All lawyers and judges know that a jury’s knowledge of prior convictions is, in itself, a most damning thing in the trial of a criminal case. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Germanese v. Champlin
green
1 sentence1983A.M.T. v. Weinstein, 411 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.App.1967); Mahan v. Baile, 358 Mo. 625 , 216 S.W.2d 92 (1949); Germanese v. Champlin, 540 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1976) (Defendant requested a delay and then suffered default). [6] See generally Greenwood v. Schnake, 396 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.1965); Johnson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 240 Mo.App. 1187 , 225 S.W.2d 370 (K.C.App.1949) (effect of joining other matters with a special appearance). [7] See, e.g., Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967), in which defendant participated in a lengthy hearing on a temporary injunction | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.