elementary principle in Missouri

2014Moreover, “[i]t is an elementary rule of law that in the face of an objection the plaintiffs evidence must conform to the pleading.” Swan v. Stuart, 353 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Mo.App.1962).

1998Swan v. Stuart, 353 S.W.2d 805, 806 [2] (Mo.App.1962).

1992Contrast this statement of the rule and the Eastern District’s comments in the Aluminum Products case with Padgett v. Brezner, 359 S.W.2d 416, 422 (Mo.App.1962): "It is an elementary principle of law that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible and which is within the power of the party to produce, or is capable of being produced, must always be produced in proof of every disputed fact.” 3 .

1984Hence, the best proof of the contents of a writing *374 is the writing itself.” Padgett v. Brezner, 359 S.W.2d 416, 422 (Mo.App.1962) (footnote omitted).

2001In fact, an elementary principle of justice dictates that “one man shall not be affected by another’s act or admission, to which he is a stranger.” Fenton, 499 S.W.2d at 816 .

1992State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 735 (Mo. banc) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987). “[A] defendant is entitled to be tried on his own without having his guilt prejudged by what has happened to another, it being considered an elementary principle of justice that one man shall not be affected by another’s act or admission, to which he is a stranger.” State v. Fenton, 499 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Mo.App.1973).

2018State v. White , 952 S.W.2d 802 , 805 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (citations and quotations omitted).

2000Thus, a defendant is entitled to be tried on his own without having his guilt prejudged by what has happened to another, it being considered “an elementary principle of justice that one man shall not be affected by another’s act or admission, to which he is a stranger.” State v. White, 952 S.W.2d 802, 805 (MoApp.

1994Respondent contends that the court erred in admitting a picture of the child for the jury to see “in that it was not the best evidence since the petitioner was capable of being present and no proper foundation was laid.” Under this point respondent cites one case, Dockery v. Mannisi, 636 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.1982), quoting from it at 375: “It is an elementary principle of law of evidence that the best evidence of which the ease in its nature is susceptible and which is within the power of the party to produce, or is capable of being produced, must always be produced in proof of every disputed fa

1987Dockery v. Mannisi, 636 S.W.2d 372, 375 (Mo.App.1982).

2015“It is an elementary rule of law that every person must exercise ordinary and reasonable care for his own safety and not expose himself to unnecessary risks, dangers or hazards in performing his duties.” Anderson v. Cooper, 192 Kan. 723 , 391 P.2d 86, 91 (1964).

2015“It is an elementary rule of law that every person must exercise ordinary and reasonable care for his own safety and not expose himself to unnecessary risks, dangers or hazards in performing his duties.” Anderson v. Cooper, 192 Kan. 723 , 391 P.2d 86, 91 (1964).

2014Co. v. Boatmen's Nat’l Bank, 887 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Mo.App.1994).

2014“This is because the pleader must not be permitted to prove that which he does not allege.” Id.; see also Memco, Inc. v. Chronister, 27 S.W.3d 871, 875 (Mo.App. 2000) (“[O]ne cannot recover for a cause of action not pleaded.”).

1997R.R., 905 S.W.2d 138, 148 (Mo.App.

1995Hord v. Morgan, 769 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Mo.App.1989).

1994Kestner v. Jakobe, 446 S.W.2d 188, 196 (Mo.App.1969).

1992State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 735 (Mo. banc) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987). “[A] defendant is entitled to be tried on his own without having his guilt prejudged by what has happened to another, it being considered an elementary principle of justice that one man shall not be affected by another’s act or admission, to which he is a stranger.” State v. Fenton, 499 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Mo.App.1973).

1991Furthermore, time limitations for filing post-conviction motions are mandatory, Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Mo. banc 1989), and appellant has acknowledged that any motion, were it to have been filed, would have been untimely.

1986Cf. United States v. Weber, supra, 437 F.2d [327] at 333 [(3rd Cir. 1970)]; (... “the mere fact that crimes carry different labels is not determini-tive.”) United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 926-927 [4] (2nd Cir.1980).

1985Wilson v. Miss Hutting’s Cafeterias, 360 Mo. 559, 570 , 229 S.W.2d 556, 562 (1950).

1985Wilson v. Miss Hutting’s Cafeterias, 360 Mo. 559, 570 , 229 S.W.2d 556, 562 (1950).

1984Dakman v. City of Ballwin, 483 S.W.2d 605, 608 (Mo.App.1972).

1982But this can be done only if the judge is satisfied that the prior statements are in fact inconsistent. 3 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1040.” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 , 77 S.Ct. 963, 981 [20], 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957).

1982But this can be done only if the judge is satisfied that the prior statements are in fact inconsistent. 3 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1040.” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 , 77 S.Ct. 963, 981 [20], 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957).

1976See Yeager v. Wittels, 517 S.W.2d 457 [11] (Mo.App.1974), Studt v. Leiweke, 100 S.W.2d 30 [13] (Mo.App.1937), Mock v. Missouri Union Insurance Company, 328 S.W.2d 61 [3] (Mo.App.1959) and Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc. v. Summers, 377 S.W.2d 476 [4] (Mo.App.1964).

1976See Yeager v. Wittels, 517 S.W.2d 457 [11] (Mo.App.1974), Studt v. Leiweke, 100 S.W.2d 30 [13] (Mo.App.1937), Mock v. Missouri Union Insurance Company, 328 S.W.2d 61 [3] (Mo.App.1959) and Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc. v. Summers, 377 S.W.2d 476 [4] (Mo.App.1964).

1976See Yeager v. Wittels, 517 S.W.2d 457 [11] (Mo.App.1974), Studt v. Leiweke, 100 S.W.2d 30 [13] (Mo.App.1937), Mock v. Missouri Union Insurance Company, 328 S.W.2d 61 [3] (Mo.App.1959) and Eastman Kodak Stores, Inc. v. Summers, 377 S.W.2d 476 [4] (Mo.App.1964).