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 1985–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022“Reasonable choices of trial strategy, no matter how ill-fated they appear in hindsight, cannot serve as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance.” Hosier v. State, 593 S.W.3d 75 , 81 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Richard v. State, 487 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2016“The legislature created the specific right of action for adult abuse and may condition the right as it sees fit.” Kennedy v. Kennedy, 924 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Mo. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commissiongreen1 sentence1998Cole v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Comm’n, 770 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Calvin v. State
green
1 sentence2019Regardless which period, Martin's assertion that the essential elements of the crime of felony nonsupport include proof that the "total arrearage" accrued within a three-year period is without merit. 6 To the extent that Martin argues that Calvin v. State, 204 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) and State v. Williams, 119 S.W.3d 674 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) may be read to impose such a requirement, Generaux clearly held that "these cases do not hold that arrearages must be shown to have accrued within the limitations period" to establish sufficient evidence for felony criminal nonsupport. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2019Regardless which period, Martin's assertion that the essential elements of the crime of felony nonsupport include proof that the "total arrearage" accrued within a three-year period is without merit. 6 To the extent that Martin argues that Calvin v. State, 204 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) and State v. Williams, 119 S.W.3d 674 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) may be read to impose such a requirement, Generaux clearly held that "these cases do not hold that arrearages must be shown to have accrued within the limitations period" to establish sufficient evidence for felony criminal nonsupport. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Nunley
green
1 sentence2017This case is wholly unlike State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. banc 1996), cited by the majority. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rock v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2017In Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987), the United States Supreme Court'held that "[t]he right to testify on one’s own behalf at a criminal trial has sources in several provisions of the Constitution,” including the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and as "a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compelled testimony.” . 2017In Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987), the United States Supreme Court'held that "[t]he right to testify on one’s own behalf at a criminal trial has sources in several provisions of the Constitution,” including the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and as "a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compelled testimony.” . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Martin v. City of Washington
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 492 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Robert Williams v. J. R. Martin, Warden, and the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina
green
2 sentences1985The Martin standard requires public funding of a criminal defendant’s expert “when a substantial question exists over an issue requiring expert testimony for its resolution and the defendant’s position cannot be fully developed without professional assistance.” Martin, supra, at 1026 . 1985The Martin standard requires public funding of a criminal defendant’s expert “when a substantial question exists over an issue requiring expert testimony for its resolution and the defendant’s position cannot be fully developed without professional assistance.” Martin, supra, at 1026 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.