Parker analysis (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

Parker analysis in Missouri

7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2017 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Stasi v. Truman Medical Center, Inc.green
moctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017For example, in State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 364 (Mo. App. W.D.' 2010), a venire-person responded affirmatively to defense counsel’s question during voir dire asking whether “anybody ever felt discriminated against because of their race?” The venire-person explained he felt he had been the subject of a discriminatory vehicle stop by the police.

2017For example, in State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 364 (Mo. App. W.D.' 2010), a venire-person responded affirmatively to defense counsel’s question during voir dire asking whether “anybody ever felt discriminated against because of their race?” The venire-person explained he felt he had been the subject of a discriminatory vehicle stop by the police.

11
State v. Shurngreen
mo · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 447, 472 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 118 , 130 L.Ed.2d 64 (1994).

11
State v. Gomezgreen
moctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994See State v. Gomez, 863 S.W.2d 652, 656 (Mo.App.1993).

11
Townsend v. Townsendgreen
moctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989One spouse may make a gift to the other, of course, from marital property or from nonmarital property of the donor spouse, although it requires clear and convincing evidence to establish such gift, Townsend v. Townsend, 705 S.W.2d 595, 598 (Mo.App.1986).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB green
scotus · 1994
2 sentences

2017The rationale of Batson was extended to the removal of’potential jurors based on gender in J.B.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B., 511 U'.S; 127, ' 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). .

2017The rationale of Batson was extended to the removal of’potential jurors based on gender in J.B.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B., 511 U'.S; 127, ' 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). .

12017–2017
State v. Washington green
moctapp · 2009
2 sentences

2017Washington,- 288 S.W.3d at 315 . •The outcome in this case must be distinguished from situations where the State’s explanation for a peremptory strike is not objectively or facially based on race, but nonetheless has an apparent impact on a venireperson' of a particular race—a scenario that implicates the third step in the Parker analysis but not the.second.

2017Washington,- 288 S.W.3d at 315 . •The outcome in this case must be distinguished from situations where the State’s explanation for a peremptory strike is not objectively or facially based on race, but nonetheless has an apparent impact on a venireperson' of a particular race—a scenario that implicates the third step in the Parker analysis but not the.second.

12017–2017
State v. Parker green
moctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2010Id.

12010–2010
Boyd v. Brown green
scotus · 1994
1 sentence

1994State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 447, 472 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 118 , 130 L.Ed.2d 64 (1994).

11994–1994
State v. Sharkey green
moctapp · 1991
1 sentence

1994That videotape was made not as part of the prosecution’s case but as part of my defense, and I feel that might be important to my defense.” When asked if he was familiar with the pretrial rulings on numerous Motions in Limine and what areas he could and could not go into, Parker’s response was, ‘Well, I know that my attorney stipulated to some of those, which I did not agree with at the time.” Parker’s motion and his oral presentation of it to the trial judge reveals that if his motion had been allowed, either a continuance would have been necessary, which is not the intended use of the right

11994–1994
State v. Davis green
moctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1978The alternative approach first requires the presence of an independent basis of identification, which is determined by considering the reliability factors enumerated in Big-gers, supra. State v. Davis, 529 S.W.2d 10 [5, 6] (Mo.App.1975).

1978The alternative approach first requires the presence of an independent basis of identification, which is determined by considering the reliability factors enumerated in Big-gers, supra. State v. Davis, 529 S.W.2d 10 [5, 6] (Mo.App.1975).

11978–1978
Golian v. Stanley green
mo · 1960
1 sentence

1964Golian v. Stanley, supra. It should first be noted that the defendant Parker’s last assignment of error does not contain any allegation going to the trial court’s action in overruling an objection to and denying a request to instruct the jury to disregard the statements made by plaintiff’s counsel immediately following the sustaining of an objection to that very statement.

11964–1964
Daniels v. Banning green
mo · 1959
1 sentence

1964In Daniels v. Banning, supra, the basis-for the rule is stated to be that such evidence is ordinarily introduced only for the purpose of appealing to the sympathy of the jury.

11964–1964

Where else courts name it

NY 82 (1977–2026) TX 28 (2000–2026) CA 19 (1961–2026) FL 18 (1985–2025) GA 14 (1989–2020) LA 13 (1977–2012) NC 10 (1969–2023) MI 9 (1981–2023) OH 9 (1986–2025) PA 8 (1957–2022) MO 7 (1964–2017) TN 6 (1995–2021) IL 6 (1983–2026) IN 6 (1989–2018) MS 6 (1998–2019) UT 6 (1995–2000) CO 5 (1975–2009) NJ 5 (1972–2021) KY 5 (1953–2018) WA 5 (1996–2024) AL 5 (1993–2017) CT 5 (1975–2008) AZ 5 (1973–2020) MN 4 (1984–2017) SC 4 (1955–2011) OK 4 (1992–2021) MA 3 (2007–2012) MD 3 (1977–2009) WI 3 (1998–2020) IA 2 (2012–2014) AR 2 (1959–2006) VT 2 (2007–2020) NM 2 (2015–2017) MT 2 (2005–2009) ID 2 (2015–2017) DC 2 (2017–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check