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.
7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nick Savage v. Kansas City Power & Light Companygreen1 sentence2019However, in order to demonstrate prejudice, Suppes challenges not the error in the jury instruction submitted for this claim but rather that the claim should not have been submitted to the jury in the first place, a distinct and separate allegation of error.7 "When reviewing claims of instructional error, we will reverse a jury verdict on the ground of instructional error if the error resulted in prejudice that 'materially affected the merits of the action.'" Savage v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 515 S.W.3d 778, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., | 1 | 1 |
Westerhold v. Mullenix Corp.green1 sentence2002Westerhold v. Mullenix Corp., 777 S.W.2d 257, 266 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Nickerson v. Moberly Foods, Inc.green1 sentence1993Nickerson v. Moberly Foods, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 87, 92 (Mo. App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
McPherson v. Bi-State Development Agencygreen1 sentence1989McPherson v. Bi-State Development Agency, 702 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Mo.App.1985). | 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. Osborn
green
1 sentence2010In Osborn , the court noted that while Section 566.151.1 "does not contain a requirement that a defendant know that his victim is under the age of fifteen,” the approved jury instruction pertinent to this charge, MAI 320.37, provides that, "to be found guilty a defendant must have (1) known or been aware that the victim was under fifteen, or (2) intended to pursue sexual conduct with a person under fifteen.” 318 S.W.3d at 713-14 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Keil
green
1 sentence1995In Keil , the court noted that the Missouri Supreme Court had, on March 9, 1989, approved an instruction containing a definition of deviate sexual intercourse but that the order by which it was adopted provided that it “must be used and followed on and after July 1, 1989.” Id. at 292 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.