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.
55 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1886–2017 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. Snydergreen2 sentences1990“If an applicable criminal instruction is provided by MAI-CR, it is mandatory that the court give the instruction as written.” State v. Snyder, 748 S.W.2d 781, 786 (Mo.App.1988). 1990Our Court has previously held that “if a criminal instruction is provided by MAI-CR, it is mandatory that the court give the instruction as written.” State v. Snyder, 748 S.W.2d 781, 785 (Mo.App.1988). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1996State v. Johnson, 714 S.W.2d 752, 762 (Mo.App.1986). 1991State v. Johnson, 714 S.W.2d 752, 762 (Mo.App.1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences1988State v. Outley, 693 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Moore, 615 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Mo.App.1981). 1985As a general principle, “if an applicable criminal instruction is provided by MAI-CR2d, it is mandatory that the court give the instruction, as written.” State v. Moore, 615 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Mo.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Outleygreen2 sentences1988State v. Outley, 693 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Moore, 615 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Mo.App.1981). 1988State v. Outley, 693 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Mo.App.1985). | 2 | 2 |
Sullivan v. KSD/KSD-TVgreen2 sentences2017Sullivan, 661 S.W.2d at 51 . 1993In civil cases the court is not required to instruct upon any proposition of law arising in a case unless requested, Sullivan v. KSD/KSD-TV, 661 S.W.2d 49, 51 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1983), and a party may not complain of error in instructions it requested, or the failure of the court to give an instruction not requested. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Salmongreen2 sentences1975State v. Salmon, 216 Mo. 466, 529 , 115 S.W. 1106, 1125 [8] (1909). 1912The ruling of the Supreme Court is that it is not necessary to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence at all unless that character of evidence alone is relied upon for conviction. [State v. Crone, 209 Mo. 316 .] But though not necessary that the court give such instruction, yet if the court does give one, “it should cover the subject fully, and give such an instruction as has frequently met with approval by this court.” [State v. Salmon, 216 Mo. 466, 529 .] The first instruction for the state is so restricted that it does not embrace all the elements of the crime charged. [State v. Cha | 1 | 2 |
State v. Murphygreen1 sentence2015Nonetheless, “the giving of the instruction did not ‘so misdirect the jury .... as to cause “manifest injustice.” ’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 733 (Mo. banc 1979)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen1 sentence1996“If an applicable criminal instruction is provided by MAI-CR, it is mandatory that the court give the instruction as written.” State v. Moore, 882 S.W.2d 253, 262 (Mo.App.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 942 , 130 L.Ed.2d 886 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boyergreen1 sentence1993State v. Lawshea, supra; See also State v. Boyer, 805 S.W.2d 693, 694-695 [2] (Mo.App.1991); State v. Twitty, 793 S.W.2d 561 , 565 — 566[9] (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Young ex rel. Young v. Davisgreen1 sentence1987A party is required to tender instructions that submit his claim or affirmative defense, Young v. Davis, 726 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Mo.App.1987) and cannot complain of error in the failure of the court to give an instruction not requested. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bannistergreen1 sentence1987While it is true that the instruction is required in a case that is based solely upon circumstantial evidence, State v. Bannister, 680 S.W.2d 141, 148 (Mo. banc 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009 , 105 S.Ct. 1879 , 85 L.Ed.2d 170 (1985), the state presented both direct and circumstantial evidence in this case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen1 sentence1985Further, “this court has no authority to declare erroneous those instruction forms and their accompanying Notes on Use which have been adopted for standard use by the Supreme Court.” State v. Dixon, 655 S.W.2d 547, 560 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Mee, 643 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boydgreen1 sentence1983State v. Hurst, 612 S.W.2d 846, 857 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Boyd, 600 S.W.2d 97, 100 (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. First National Bank of Callaway Countygreen1 sentence1983Generally, a party may not complain of error in instructions it requested, Stevenson v. First National Bank of Callaway County, 604 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Mo.App.1980), or the failure of the court to give an instruction not requested. | 1 | 1 |
Chaussard v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.green1 sentence1983See Chaussard v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 536 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hurstgreen1 sentence1983State v. Hurst, 612 S.W.2d 846, 857 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Boyd, 600 S.W.2d 97, 100 (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lomackgreen1 sentence1981State v. Lomack, 586 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Halegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hutchingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lunsfordgreen | 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 v. King
green
2 sentences1927In State v. King, 203 Mo. l.c. 571, 102 S.W. 515 , the defendant sought to have the court give an instruction for a lower grade of homicide, based on his own testimony. 1913In State v. King, 203 Mo. 560, 571 , a murder case, the defendant sought to have the court give an instruction for a. lower degree of homicide based on his own testimony, which was refused on the ground that it was in contradiction of all the other testimony in the case, and that “neither courts nor juries are required to stultify themselves by rejecting the immutable facts in a case.” In State v. Arnold, 206 Mo. 589, 600 , an assault with intent to kill, the court holds that neither courts nor juries are required to accept as true, evidence which contradicts the admitted physical facts in a e | 2 | 1913–1927 |
State v. Wheadon
green
2 sentences2015The court held that “[although the attempt definition conformed with MAI section 333.00, it was error for the court to give the instruction.” Id. 2015Nonetheless, “the giving of the instruction did not ‘so misdirect the jury .... as to cause “manifest injustice.” ’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 733 (Mo. banc 1979)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Derenzy
green
1 sentence2003Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d at 475 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Barajas
green
1 sentence1999By failing to remind the court to give the instruction when it was apparent that the panel was going to be excused without the reading of the instruction, the defendant waived his right to appellate review.” Id. at [1] (citations omitted). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hardnett v. Marshall
green
1 sentence1996“If an applicable criminal instruction is provided by MAI-CR, it is mandatory that the court give the instruction as written.” State v. Moore, 882 S.W.2d 253, 262 (Mo.App.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 942 , 130 L.Ed.2d 886 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lyles v. Indiana
green
1 sentence1996“If an applicable criminal instruction is provided by MAI-CR, it is mandatory that the court give the instruction as written.” State v. Moore, 882 S.W.2d 253, 262 (Mo.App.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 942 , 130 L.Ed.2d 886 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Twitty
green
1 sentence1993State v. Lawshea, supra; See also State v. Boyer, 805 S.W.2d 693, 694-695 [2] (Mo.App.1991); State v. Twitty, 793 S.W.2d 561 , 565 — 566[9] (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Lawshea
green
1 sentence1993State v. Lawshea, supra; See also State v. Boyer, 805 S.W.2d 693, 694-695 [2] (Mo.App.1991); State v. Twitty, 793 S.W.2d 561 , 565 — 566[9] (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Philp v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1987Philp, 657 S.W.2d at 682 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Villages, Inc. v. Metropolitan Development Commission
green
1 sentence1987While it is true that the instruction is required in a case that is based solely upon circumstantial evidence, State v. Bannister, 680 S.W.2d 141, 148 (Mo. banc 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009 , 105 S.Ct. 1879 , 85 L.Ed.2d 170 (1985), the state presented both direct and circumstantial evidence in this case. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
McDonald v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1987While it is true that the instruction is required in a case that is based solely upon circumstantial evidence, State v. Bannister, 680 S.W.2d 141, 148 (Mo. banc 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009 , 105 S.Ct. 1879 , 85 L.Ed.2d 170 (1985), the state presented both direct and circumstantial evidence in this case. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Mee
green
1 sentence1985Further, “this court has no authority to declare erroneous those instruction forms and their accompanying Notes on Use which have been adopted for standard use by the Supreme Court.” State v. Dixon, 655 S.W.2d 547, 560 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Mee, 643 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App.1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. O'NEAL
green
1 sentence1982Following the lead of State v. O’Neal, 618 S.W.2d 31, 36-37 , decided by the Supreme Court on June 8, 1981, almost ten months after this defendant’s trial, we hold that the evidence of abandonment in this case was so minimal as not to support the submission of that defense to the jury. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Hunter green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Cooper green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Mason green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Price v. Haeberle neutral | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. Malone green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| State v. Browning green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| State v. Herron green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Barnum v. Hutchens Metal Products green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Ingram v. Clemens green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. Brooks green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| State v. McNamara green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| State v. Weinberg green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Terrell v. McKnight green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Gray v. Columbia Terminals Co. green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| O'Brien v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Downs v. Horton green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| State v. Palmberg green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| State v. Bowman green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Hartman v. Hartman green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Harding v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Lasater v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Roberts v. Trunk neutral | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Loomis v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Baldwin v. Harvey neutral | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| State v. Tobie neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| State v. Arnold green | 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.