8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shifkowski v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Shifkowski v. State, 136 S.W.3d 588, 590 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 2008As this court observed in Shifkowski v. State, 136 S.W.3d 588, 590 (Mo.App.2004), *857 “[In Deck ], the Court noted that an unpre-served trial error, reviewed only for plain error, might not meet the ‘outcome-determinative’ standard necessary to grant a new trial”; but “the same unpreserved error — reviewed in a post-conviction proceeding under the Strickland standard for judging ineffective assistance of counsel— would be sufficient ‘in a small number of cases’ to authorize relief because the occurrence of the error undermines the court’s confidence in the fairness of the proceeding by creati | 2 | 2 |
Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Servicesgreen2 sentences2020Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 631 , 355 P.3d 667, 673 (2015). 2020Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 631 , 355 P.3d 667, 673 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Dohring v. Kansas City.green2 sentences2000The Notice Requirement Notice to the city, within 90 days of the occurrence, is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the city if the action arises from a defect in the condition of “any bridge, boulevard, street, sidewalk or thoroughfare.” Dohring v. Kansas City, 228 Mo.App. 519 , 71 S.W.2d 170, 171 (1934). 2000The Notice Requirement Notice to the city, within 90 days of the occurrence, is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the city if the action arises from a defect in the condition of “any bridge, boulevard, street, sidewalk or thoroughfare.” Dohring v. Kansas City, 228 Mo.App. 519 , 71 S.W.2d 170, 171 (1934). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Queen of Diamonds, Inc. v. Quinn
green
2 sentences1980Queen of Diamonds, supra. The whole concept of Merit System employment assumes that the status of an employee once acquired will not be disturbed except for cause. 1980Queen of Diamonds, supra . | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Deck v. State
green
1 sentence2004Nevertheless, the same unpreserved error — reviewed in a post-conviction proceeding under the Strickland standard for judging ineffective assistance of counsel — would be sufficient “in a small number of cases” to authorize relief because the occurrence of the error undermines the court’s confidence in the fairness of the proceeding by creating a reasonable probability the result would have been different. 3 Id. at 428 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Haggard
green
1 sentence1981Under the authority of State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo.banc 1981), the conviction of armed criminal action where defendant was also convicted of robbery in the first degree arising out of the same occurrence is a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and as such, defendant must be discharged as to the conviction "for armed criminal action. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.