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 2 courts 1910–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Jonesburg State Bankgreen1 sentence2025Accordingly, Ridgetop violated Rule 54.12 as well as § 534.090. 7 from plaintiff as Rule 54.12(c)(2) requires); Miller v. Jonesburg State Bank, 174 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (holding the circuit court committed reversible error when it accepted service by publication without a description of the property in the publication notice). | 1 | 1 |
Worley v. Worleygreen1 sentence2025“If a statute authorizes a method of service, service may be made pursuant to the provisions of the statute or as provided in Rule 54.” Flair v. Campbell, 44 S.W.3d 444 , 450–51 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (quoting Worley v. Worley, 19 S.W.3d 127, 129 (Mo. banc 2000)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Massman Construction Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commissiongreen1 sentence2025Comm’n, 914 S.W.2d 801, 803-04 (Mo. banc 1996) (holding a circuit court committed reversible error in treating the plaintiff’s motion for additur as a motion for new trial when the plaintiff did not ask for a new trial but included a broad prayer for relief for “such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate”). | 1 | 1 |
Aliff v. Codygreen1 sentence2019In its fourth point on appeal, DOC argues that the circuit court committed reversible error in the exclusion of DOC’s rebuttal7 expert witness testimony.8 7 The admissibility and scope of rebuttal evidence is within the discretion of the trial court, and, “absent an abuse of that discretion, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision.” Aliff v. Cody, 26 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Tarshish Jones v. City of Kansas City, Missourigreen1 sentence2019“An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the trial court and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that the ruling 9 Though DOC’s argument on appeal as to the admissibility of its rebuttal expert, Dr. Chester Hanvey, focuses on the admissibility of such expert testimony as outlined by Missouri’s expert witness statute, § 490.065.2, DOC conveniently ignores the circuit court’s authority to administer the rules of discovery and its broad discretion to strike experts and their corresponding opinions not timely disclosed—which | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Bruce Piercegreen2 sentences2015"This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision whether to give a requested jury instruction under section 556.046." State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Mo. banc 2014). "[I]f the statutory requirements for giving such an instruction are met, a failure to give a requested instruction is reversible error." Id. 2015"This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision whether to give a requested jury instruction under section 556.046." State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Mo. banc 2014). "[I]f the statutory requirements for giving such an instruction are met, a failure to give a requested instruction is reversible error." Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rosemann v. Rosemann
green
1 sentence2025Rosemann, 349 S.W.3d at 471–72 (holding the circuit court committed reversible error when it accepted service by publication without a verified statement 3 Though no party raised this argument, this Court recognizes Ridgetop also violated Rule 54.12. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Flair v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2025“If a statute authorizes a method of service, service may be made pursuant to the provisions of the statute or as provided in Rule 54.” Flair v. Campbell, 44 S.W.3d 444 , 450–51 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (quoting Worley v. Worley, 19 S.W.3d 127, 129 (Mo. banc 2000)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Doza v. Kitcher
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 827 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Shockley
green
1 sentence2019This Court found Movant's claim without merit, stating, "Not only did neither counsel take the judge up on this offered opportunity to question Juror 58 about whether he had discussed his novel with other jurors, defense counsel specifically waived any right to such a hearing." Shockley , 410 S.W.3d at 201 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Krehmeyer v. St. Louis Transit Co.
green
2 sentences1910The complaint lodged against instructions 1 and 2, is made in the following language: “The appellant contends that plaintiffs’ instructions Nos. 1 and 2, are. in conflict, and the circuit court committed reversible error in giving both of said instructions, as one authorizes the jury to find for the plaintiff on the ground of negligence of defendant without any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs and asks finding for the plaintiff on the so-called humanitarian or last chance doctrine.” The Supreme Court in Krehmeyer v. Transit Co., 220 Mo. 639 , 120 S. W. 78 , in an opinion by Woodson, in 1910The complaint lodged against instructions 1 and 2, is made in the following language: “The appellant contends that plaintiffs’ instructions Nos. 1 and 2, are. in conflict, and the circuit court committed reversible error in giving both of said instructions, as one authorizes the jury to find for the plaintiff on the ground of negligence of defendant without any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs and asks finding for the plaintiff on the so-called humanitarian or last chance doctrine.” The Supreme Court in Krehmeyer v. Transit Co., 220 Mo. 639 , 120 S. W. 78 , in an opinion by Woodson, in | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.