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 1951–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dawson v. Dawsongreen1 sentence2014See also Dawson v. Dawson, 366 S.W.3d 107 , 115 n. 11 (Mo.App.2012) (finding “Mother’s Exhibit A to her post-trial motion was not admitted into evidence, and could not have been considered by the trial court.”); In re Marriage of Thomas, 21 S.W.3d 168 , 178 n. 11 (Mo.App.2000) (finding that for the appellate court to treat Exhibit A to Husband’s post trial motion “as evidence on appeal without having offered it would deprive Wife of her opportunity to present objections to the exhibit and challenge its admission into evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holmangreen1 sentence1979State v. Holman, 556 S.W.2d 499, 506 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Haslip, 583 S.W.2d 225 (Mo.App.1979) (So. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CHARLES HENRY STROH v. KELLY ANN STROH, Respondent-Respondent.
green
1 sentence2015“Items contained in an appendix, but which are not in the legal file or deposited with the appellate court, are not considered on appeal.” Stroh v. Stroh, 454 S.W.3d 351 , 355 n. 1 (Mo.App.S.D.2014). “[T]his Court cannot take judicial notice of an ordinance that is not in the record on appeal.” Union Ctr. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Marriage of Thomas
green
1 sentence2014See also Dawson v. Dawson, 366 S.W.3d 107 , 115 n. 11 (Mo.App.2012) (finding “Mother’s Exhibit A to her post-trial motion was not admitted into evidence, and could not have been considered by the trial court.”); In re Marriage of Thomas, 21 S.W.3d 168 , 178 n. 11 (Mo.App.2000) (finding that for the appellate court to treat Exhibit A to Husband’s post trial motion “as evidence on appeal without having offered it would deprive Wife of her opportunity to present objections to the exhibit and challenge its admission into evidence.”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Cole
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 899-900 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Blair
green
1 sentence1985Movant concedes that State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188 , 103 S.Ct. 838 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1983) reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct. 1240 , 75 L.Ed.2d 472 , decides the issue adversely to him. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Maryland v. United States Tandy Corporation v. United States North American Telephone Association v. United States Illinois v. United States
green
2 sentences1985Movant concedes that State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188 , 103 S.Ct. 838 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1983) reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct. 1240 , 75 L.Ed.2d 472 , decides the issue adversely to him. 1985Movant concedes that State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188 , 103 S.Ct. 838 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1983) reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct. 1240 , 75 L.Ed.2d 472 , decides the issue adversely to him. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Horton v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1985Movant concedes that State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188 , 103 S.Ct. 838 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1983) reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct. 1240 , 75 L.Ed.2d 472 , decides the issue adversely to him. 1985Movant concedes that State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188 , 103 S.Ct. 838 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1983) reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct. 1240 , 75 L.Ed.2d 472 , decides the issue adversely to him. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Colorado v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence1985Movant concedes that State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1188 , 103 S.Ct. 838 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1983) reh. denied, 459 U.S. 1229 , 103 S.Ct. 1240 , 75 L.Ed.2d 472 , decides the issue adversely to him. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Scaturro
green
1 sentence1981State v. Scaturro, supra. Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Haslip
green
1 sentence1979State v. Holman, 556 S.W.2d 499, 506 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Haslip, 583 S.W.2d 225 (Mo.App.1979) (So. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences1951State v. Martin, 349 Mo. 639 , 162 S.W.2d 847 . 1951State v. Martin, 349 Mo. 639 , 162 S.W.2d 847 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.