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 1910–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1997See State v. Smith, 825 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Mo.App. 1992). | 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. Carson
green
1 sentence2002In reversing his conviction, the Supreme Court found that “bringing into the state” overlaps with “possessing,” and that “the more logical analysis of trafficking in the second degree is to conclude that overlapping versions of the same crime have the same culpable mental state — knowledge.” Id. at 521 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Loyd v. Moore
green
1 sentence1977In Loyd v. Moore, 390 S.W.2d 951 (Mo.App.1965), recognizing this logical principle, the court stated, 1. c. 955[5]: “* * * And a jury may reasonably find that a plaintiff’s zone of imminent peril is widened by reason of his obliviousness, if it further finds that such obliviousness should have been apparent to the defendant. * * *” In McDonough v. St. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
McDonough v. St. Louis Public Service Company
green
1 sentence1977Louis Public Service Company, 350 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. 1961), the court stated, 1. c. 743[1]: “* * * Plaintiff’s obliviousness widened the zone of peril considerably beyond the immediate path of the bus and imposed upon the bus driver the duty to act in avoidance when he saw, or by the exercise of the highest degree of care could have seen, plaintiff approaching the path of the bus oblivious of the danger and intent upon continuing into its path. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Swanson v. Nelson
green
1 sentence1952Thus in Swanson v. Nelson, 127 Ill.App. 144 , loc. cit. 149, it is said: "In our opinion the primary and logical rule is that the cost of restoration or repair is to be considered the measure of damages in cases of injuries to real property. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Powell v. St. Joseph Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co.
green
2 sentences1950H. & P. Co., 336 Mo. 1016 , 81 S. W. 2d 957, 960 .” This is logical if the rule merely shifts the burden of going forward With the evidence to a defendant. 1950H. & P. Co., 336 Mo. 1016 , 81 S. W. 2d 957, 960 .” This is logical if the rule merely shifts the burden of going forward With the evidence to a defendant. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Kennedy v. Union Electric Co.
green
1 sentence1949Kennedy v. Union Electric Co. of Mo., Mo.Sup., 216 S.W.2d 756 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Grout v. Central Electric Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1910The humanitarian doctrine does not take into account the question of how the peril was created (Grout v. Railway, 125 Mo. App. 552 ), but takes the imperiled man where it finds him, regardless of whose fault pláced him theré, and says to; the defendant: “If you saw, or in the exercise of reasonable care,, should have seen his peril, you should have done all you reasonably could have done to save him and if you failed thus to exert yourself, you must answer in damages for the injury.” In this view of the humanitarian doctrine, it is' a logical error to sáy that the' issues' we are discussing ar | 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.