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 1975–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reuscher v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Shockley, 579 S.W.3d at 919 (internal quotation omitted); Tate, 461 S.W.3d at 22 (quoting 13 Reuscher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. banc 1994)); Hogan, 631 S.W.3d at 570 (citing Meiners, 540 S.W.3d at 836 ). | 1 | 1 |
Lance C. Shockley v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2022See Shockley, 579 S.W.3d at 919 (internal quotation omitted); Tate, 461 S.W.3d at 22 (quoting 13 Reuscher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. banc 1994)); Hogan, 631 S.W.3d at 570 (citing Meiners, 540 S.W.3d at 836 ). | 1 | 1 |
Coday v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Coday v. State, 92 S.W.3d 324, 326-27 (Mo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Wheelergreen1 sentence1985See Jackson v. Wheeler, 567 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Mo.App.1978) for a discussion on the need for an evidentiary hearing on Rule 74.12 motions. | 1 | 1 |
Merritt v. Stategreen1 sentence1983Rule 27.26(j); Merritt v. State, 650 S.W.2d 21, 22 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Cawthon v. Stategreen1 sentence1982A converse statement of the rule respecting the need for an evidentiary hearing is found in Cawthon v. State, 614 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Mo.App.1980), where the court said: “[A]n evidentiary hearing is not mandatory and may be denied by the circuit court if [movant], with assistance of counsel, is unable to amend his motion in such a way as to establish a factual basis for his ... claimed relief.” “When an indigent prisoner files a pro se motion, counsel is to be immediately appointed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of B.H.
green
1 sentence2022See Shockley, 579 S.W.3d at 919 (internal quotation omitted); Tate, 461 S.W.3d at 22 (quoting 13 Reuscher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. banc 1994)); Hogan, 631 S.W.3d at 570 (citing Meiners, 540 S.W.3d at 836 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Meiners v. State
green
1 sentence2022See Shockley, 579 S.W.3d at 919 (internal quotation omitted); Tate, 461 S.W.3d at 22 (quoting 13 Reuscher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. banc 1994)); Hogan, 631 S.W.3d at 570 (citing Meiners, 540 S.W.3d at 836 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bass v. National Super Markets, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Though the parties do not disagree about whether the work that caused Barger's injury was work performed under and required by the contract between KCP&L and Projectile, rendering whether Barger's work was in the usual course of KCP&L's business a question of law to be determined by the court, Bass , 911 S.W.2d at 621 , that does not foreclose the need for an evidentiary hearing to permit the parties the opportunity to present disputed evidence relevant to determining the legal issue. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn
green
1 sentence2010E.D. 2001). [6] All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated. [7] In explaining when the need for an evidentiary hearing exists "given the summary nature of the proceedings," the Missouri Supreme Court held that a trial court did not error in "decline[ing] to entertain live witnesses. . . [where] the [trial] court was provided with more than 3,700 pages of documents, affidavits, deposition transcripts and other materials with which to resolve the factual disputes." Nitro Distrib., 194 S.W.3d at 352 . [8] First, Appellant contended he signed the Arbitration Agre | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Peppermint Lounge, Inc. v. Wright
green
1 sentence1975Having so done, this court concluded, 498 S.W.2d at 753 : “ * * * The position taken by this Court in Noel and Pinzino, supra, are not inconsistent with later concepts of the nature and limits of the property interests procedurally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.