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 1987–2025 2 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. Lewisgreen1 sentence2024Pierce only applied as an exception to that general rule and was “restricted to its unique factual situation.” State v. Duley, 219 S.W.3d 842, 844 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Lewis, 431 S.W.3d at 12 (“Its use is also growing increasingly disfavored beyond its limited application such as to the specific facts at issue in Pierce.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Duleygreen1 sentence2024Pierce only applied as an exception to that general rule and was “restricted to its unique factual situation.” State v. Duley, 219 S.W.3d 842, 844 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Lewis, 431 S.W.3d at 12 (“Its use is also growing increasingly disfavored beyond its limited application such as to the specific facts at issue in Pierce.”). | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Stategreen1 sentence1991Johnson v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association, 510 S.W.2d 83, 40 (Mo.1974); Forsythe v. Starnes, 554 S.W.2d 100 (Mo.App.1977). | 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. Jefferson
green
1 sentence2025Id. (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State of Missouri v. Tyrone Benedict
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences1998In Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), the United States Supreme Court created an exception to that general rule based on the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. 1998In Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), the United States Supreme Court created an exception to that general rule based on the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cross v. Gould
green
2 sentences1992Cross v. Gould, 110 S.W. at 676 , defines "irregular" for purposes of a motion to set aside an irregular judgment. [A] motion to set aside a judgment for irregularity ... is available as a remedy only in those cases where there is some irregularity appearing in the judgment itself or on the face of the proceeding antecedent thereto. 1992Cross v. Gould, 110 S.W. at 676 , defines “irregular” for purposes of a motion to set aside an irregular judgment. [A] motion to set aside a judgment for irregularity ... is available as a remedy only in those cases where there is some irregularity appearing in the judgment itself or on the face of the proceeding antecedent thereto. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Forsythe v. Starnes
green
1 sentence1991Johnson v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association, 510 S.W.2d 83, 40 (Mo.1974); Forsythe v. Starnes, 554 S.W.2d 100 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ferguson v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1987Ferguson v. Boyd, supra, 448 S.W.2d at 903 ; Consol. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.