record for plain error (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

record for plain error in Missouri

8 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2006 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Coleberd v. Coleberdgreen
moctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003We initially note that “ ‘[a]ll property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage, and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or jointly.’” Coleberd v. Coleberd, 933 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Mo.App.1996) (quoting Kettler v. Kettler, 884 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.App.1994)); see Clark v. Clark, 919 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo.App.1996).

11
In Re Marriage of Kettler v. Kettlergreen
moctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003We initially note that “ ‘[a]ll property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage, and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or jointly.’” Coleberd v. Coleberd, 933 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Mo.App.1996) (quoting Kettler v. Kettler, 884 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.App.1994)); see Clark v. Clark, 919 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo.App.1996).

11
Clark v. Clarkgreen
moctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003We initially note that “ ‘[a]ll property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage, and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or jointly.’” Coleberd v. Coleberd, 933 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Mo.App.1996) (quoting Kettler v. Kettler, 884 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.App.1994)); see Clark v. Clark, 919 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo.App.1996).

11
Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co.green
mo · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446, 448 [1] (Mo. banc 1976), citing Euge v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 386 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Mo.1965).

11
Euge v. Lemay Bank & Trust Companygreen
mo · 1965 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446, 448 [1] (Mo. banc 1976), citing Euge v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 386 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Mo.1965).

11
State v. Bridgesgreen
mo · 1973 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
1 sentence

1976Preliminarily we note 1) that in general, instructional error is not “plain error” unless the trial court has so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury on the law of the case as to cause manifest injustice, State v. Bridges, 491 S.W.2d 543, 547 [4] (Mo.1973); State v. Auger, 434 S.W.2d 1, 4 [1] (Mo.1968); State v. Murphy, 533 S.W .2d 716, 718[7] (Mo.App.1976), and 2) that when this case was tried in 1973 failure to instruct the jury on all the law of the case did not of itself constitute plain error.

11
State v. Augergreen
mo · 1968 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
1 sentence

1976Preliminarily we note 1) that in general, instructional error is not “plain error” unless the trial court has so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury on the law of the case as to cause manifest injustice, State v. Bridges, 491 S.W.2d 543, 547 [4] (Mo.1973); State v. Auger, 434 S.W.2d 1, 4 [1] (Mo.1968); State v. Murphy, 533 S.W .2d 716, 718[7] (Mo.App.1976), and 2) that when this case was tried in 1973 failure to instruct the jury on all the law of the case did not of itself constitute plain error.

11
State v. Randolphgreen
mo · 1973 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976Because the defendant has received two life sentences for crimes committed in the same transaction, and because failure to instruct on all defenses supported by substantial evidence may constitute plain error, State v. Randolph, 496 S.W.2d 257, 261 [4] (Mo. banc 1973), we shall, in this instance, review the record for plain error.

1976Because the defendant has received two life sentences for crimes committed in the same transaction, and because failure to instruct on all defenses supported by substantial evidence may constitute plain error, State v. Randolph, 496 S.W.2d 257, 261 [4] (Mo. banc 1973), we shall, in this instance, review the record for plain error.

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
State v. Dexter green
mo · 1997
1 sentence

2006Once we determine a Doyle violation has occurred, “this Court has the discretion to review the violation or violations in context of the entire record for plain error that affects substantial rights and constitutes a manifest injustice.” Dexter, 954 S.W.2d at 340 .

12006–2006
State v. Leisure green
mo · 1988
1 sentence

2003Rule 30.20; Leisure, 749 S.W.2d at 376 .

12003–2003
Jad v. Fjd green
mo · 1998
1 sentence

1999Nonetheless, as did the Supreme Court of Missouri in J.A.D., 978 S.W.2d at 339 , this court has reviewed the record for plain error per Rule 84.13(c).

11999–1999
State v. Weeks green
moctapp · 1977
1 sentence

1980In his first appeal, State v. Weeks, 546 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.App.1977), we reviewed the record for plain error because defendant’s motion for new trial was not timely filed.

11980–1980
Smith v. State green
mo · 1974
1 sentence

1977As ruled in Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 [2] (Mo.1974): “His allegations that his attorneys did not investigate all possible defenses is not sufficient to warrant relief because he does not allege what defenses were available and likely would have been discovered if further investigation had been made.” Since petitioner was not represented by counsel until this appeal was taken, on our own motion we have reviewed the record for plain error under Rule 84.13(c) and find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

AL 45 (1987–2026) NE 19 (1988–2026) OH 12 (2001–2025) TN 9 (2000–2018) NC 8 (1984–2019) MO 8 (1976–2006) NJ 6 (2017–2025) IL 3 (1972–2011) WY 2 (2002–2023)

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