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 1913–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Salesgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Sales, 58 S.W.3d 554, 562 (Mo.App. 2001); § 1.160(2), RSMo Supp.1999. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morelandgreen1 sentence1964State v. Moreland, Mo., 351 S.W.2d 33, 35 [1] [2, 3] [4], Summed up, the basic facts are these: Defendant was placed on trial for the capital offense of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly *196 weapon. | 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. Cohen v. Riley
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Butler v. Missouri State Criminal Records Repository
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 431 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences1979The benefit of those procedural changes was granted to the movant in Fields because otherwise the principles announced would be only dictum, see Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), and because “it is customary to grant relief to the litigant whose case brought about the change . . . 1979The benefit of those procedural changes was granted to the movant in Fields because otherwise the principles announced would be only dictum, see Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), and because “it is customary to grant relief to the litigant whose case brought about the change . . . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Fields v. State
green
1 sentence1979The benefit of those procedural changes was granted to the movant in Fields because otherwise the principles announced would be only dictum, see Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), and because "it is customary to grant relief to the litigant whose case brought about the change . . . ." Fields, 572 S.W.2d at 483 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Keyes v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
green
1 sentence1942Co., 31 S. W. (2d) 50 .] *1148 There was no error in the a'etion of the eonrt in refusing to permit, defendant’s witnesses, who were familiar with hearings conducted by defendant, to testify that the written report of the proceedings at the hearing showed that plaintiif was given a fair and impartial hearing. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Robertson v. Robertson
green
2 sentences1935It is universally held in Revised Statutes Missouri, 1929, section 1351, that in a divorce proceeding an unsigned affidavit is no affidavit even though attested by notary or other proper authority. [Robertson v. Robertson, 270 Mo. 137 , 192 S. W. 988 .] It follows that an unsigned affidavit to a divorce petition could not be amended at a subsequent term. 1935It is universally held in Revised Statutes Missouri, 1929, section 1351, that in a divorce proceeding an unsigned affidavit is no affidavit even though attested by notary or other proper authority. [Robertson v. Robertson, 270 Mo. 137 , 192 S. W. 988 .] It follows that an unsigned affidavit to a divorce petition could not be amended at a subsequent term. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Hunt v. Searcy
neutral
2 sentences1913It is not only a suit in the full sense of that term, but is not an ex parte proceeding. [See Hunt v. Searcy, 167 Mo. 158 , 67 S. W. 206 .] The second question as to whether the informant is a party to such suit has not been directly settled by any decisions of our Supreme Court or of the appellate courts, to which our attention has been directed or which we have been able to find on our own research. 1913It is not only a suit in the full sense of that term, but is not an ex parte proceeding. [See Hunt v. Searcy, 167 Mo. 158 , 67 S. W. 206 .] The second question as to whether the informant is a party to such suit has not been directly settled by any decisions of our Supreme Court or of the appellate courts, to which our attention has been directed or which we have been able to find on our own research. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.