permissible inquiry (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

permissible inquiry in Missouri

8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Browngreen
moctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024While seeking evidence for impeachment is a permissible inquiry, it is not triggered by the rule of completeness, particularly when there is no dispute that the entirety of Defendant’s charged conduct is captured on the admitted video. 3 2 State v. Wood, 597 S.W.3d 405 , 407 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (citing State v. Brown, 360 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012)). 3 Defendant’s only point on appeal is directed at the trial court’s error in overruling his objection under the rule of completeness.

11
Alderson v. Stategreen
mo · 2009 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Special Law Claim The plaintiffs argue the circuit court erred in dismissing their special law claim pursuant to article III, § 40(28) of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from passing any special law "granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege or immunity." "A special law includes less than all who are similarly situated . . . but a law is not special if it applies to all of a given class alike and the classification is made on a reasonable basis." Alderson v. State, 273 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Mo. banc 2009) (intern

2016Special Law Claim The plaintiffs argue the circuit court erred in dismissing their special law claim pursuant to article III, § 40(28) of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from passing any special law “granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive'right, privilege or immunity.” “A special law includes less than all who are similarly situated ... but a law is not special if it applies to all of a given class alike and the classification is made on a reasonable basis.” Alderson v. State, 273 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Mo. banc 2009) (internal

11
State v. Heinzgreen
moctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
1 sentence

1982The prosecutor’s argument was a permissible challenge to the credibility of defendant who clearly had the most to gain if the jury believed his testimony that he was totally innocent of the robbery. “[W]hen a defendant offers himself as a witness in his own behalf, his testimony is subject to the same arguments on the issue of credibility as any other witness.” State v. Heinz, 607 S.W.2d 873, 880 (Mo.App.1980).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Harris v. Jungerman green
moctapp · 2018
1 sentence

2025Harris, 560 S.W.3d at 560 .

12025–2025
State v. Montgomery green
moctapp · 1995
1 sentence

2002He relies on State v. Montgomery, 901 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.App.1995).

12002–2002
Terry v. Ohio green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1995The request was consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

1995The request was consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

11995–1995
Westside Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Dexter green
moctapp · 1977
1 sentence

1979Bormann v. City of Richmond Heights, 213 S.W.2d 249 , 253 (Mo.App.1948); Westside Enterprises v. City of Dexter, supra, l.c. 640.

11979–1979
Hunter v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company green
mo · 1958
1 sentence

1966Louis Southwestern Railway Company, Mo., 315 S.W.2d 689, 697 , and that the trial court after thoughtful consideration ordered a remit-titur of $10,000, Greenan v. Emerson Electric Mfg.

11966–1966

Where else courts name it

TX 38 (1982–2026) PA 23 (1947–2026) NY 22 (1904–2025) CA 19 (1962–2024) NJ 17 (1925–2026) MI 14 (1968–2026) WA 13 (1980–2025) IL 11 (1976–2022) IA 11 (1942–2020) GA 10 (1965–2013) WY 10 (1996–2026) OR 10 (1964–2025) MA 10 (1936–2025) FL 9 (1980–2024) MO 8 (1966–2025) OH 6 (1994–2025) TN 6 (1980–2016) AZ 6 (1988–2022) NM 6 (1968–2017) AL 6 (1926–2016) DC 6 (1984–2024) MD 5 (1961–2021) OK 5 (1936–2010) DE 5 (1907–1997) MS 4 (1986–2014) MT 4 (1986–2000) KS 4 (2006–2024) NC 4 (2014–2025) WI 4 (1976–2018) WV 4 (1964–2013) ND 3 (1989–2012) MN 3 (1938–2025) AR 2 (1972–1995) AK 2 (1971–1985) VT 2 (2010–2014) IN 2 (1990–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check