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 1977–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murray v. Stategreen2 sentences2020For a failure to raise a claim on appeal, a movant must show a claim of error is “so obvious from the record that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized it and asserted it.” Murray, 511 S.W.3d at 446 (citing Reuscher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. banc 1994)). 2020“For a failure to raise a claim on appeal, a movant must show a claim of error is ‘so obvious from the record that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized it and asserted it.’” Id. at 671 (quoting Murray v. State, 511 S.W.3d 442, 446 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017)). | 1 | 2 |
Reuscher v. Stategreen1 sentence2020For a failure to raise a claim on appeal, a movant must show a claim of error is “so obvious from the record that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized it and asserted it.” Murray, 511 S.W.3d at 446 (citing Reuscher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. banc 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zweifelgreen1 sentence2009See Zweifel, 615 S.W.2d at 473 . *717 Standard of Review To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Defendant must show that: (1) appellate counsel failed to raise a claim of error that was so obvious that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized and asserted it; and (2) the claimed error was sufficiently serious to create a reasonable probability that, if it were raised, the outcome of the appeal would have been different. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2001State v. Johnson, 22 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo. banc 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Netherygreen1 sentence1977Ray v. Nethery, 255 S.W.2d 817, 819 [3, 4] (Mo.1953). | 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 Ex Rel. Zinna v. Steele
green
1 sentence2024Zinna, 301 S.W.3d at 516 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1991Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987), a movant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced his case. 1991Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987), a movant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced his case. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Sanders v. State
green
2 sentences1991Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987), a movant must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced his case. 1991Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987), a movant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced his case. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.