8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yeager v. Wittelsgreen1 sentence2013See Yeager v. Wittels, 517 S.W.2d 457, 465-66 (Mo.App.1974) (“Failure to request [] an instruction [on an affirmative defense] constitutes an abandonment of that affirmative defense even though [the affirmative defense] is affirmatively pleaded.”); Hays v. Proctor, 404 S.W.2d 756, 762 (Mo.App.1966) (“If [defendant] wanted his theory of the case presented for the jury’s consideration it was his duty to submit such instructions”). | 1 | 1 |
Hays v. Proctorgreen1 sentence2013See Yeager v. Wittels, 517 S.W.2d 457, 465-66 (Mo.App.1974) (“Failure to request [] an instruction [on an affirmative defense] constitutes an abandonment of that affirmative defense even though [the affirmative defense] is affirmatively pleaded.”); Hays v. Proctor, 404 S.W.2d 756, 762 (Mo.App.1966) (“If [defendant] wanted his theory of the case presented for the jury’s consideration it was his duty to submit such instructions”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2009State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Mo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haleygreen1 sentence2008It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to “refuse to submit additional cautionary instructions to the jury concerning eyewitnesses.” State v. Haley, 73 S.W.3d 746, 752 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2020Brady [v. Maryland], 373 U.S. [83,] 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , [ 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)]. 2020Brady [v. Maryland], 373 U.S. [83,] 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , [ 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)]. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Leisure
green
1 sentence2011State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560 , 574 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Van Orden
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital
green
1 sentence2010Perhaps seeing the weakness in its argument for an exclusive causation standard, PVI alternatively argues that this Court should adopt the but-for standard articulated in Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital, 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993), and require trial courts to instruct the jury using the causal standard in MAI 19.01, "directly caused or directly contributed to cause.” PVI did not preserve the issue for appeal by submitting it as a proposed jury instruction. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Mast v. Surgical Services of Sedalia, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2006Mast, 107 S.W.3d at 365 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.