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 1902–2011 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. Babbgreen2 sentences2011Under Missouri law, “ ‘there is a rebuttable legal presumption that [communications with jurors] were prejudicial to the moving party.’ ” State v. Babb, 680 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Mo. banc 1984). 1993We are persuaded “that the stronger reasons and the weight of authority sustain the rule that, where a motion for a new trial is made on account of communications to the jury during their deliberations, there is a rebuttable legal presumption that they were prejudicial to the moving party, that this presumption may in some cases be overcome by evidence, and that where competent evidence is offered it is the duty of the trial court to hear and consider it, and that when it does so, and decides the motion thereon, its decision is discretionary, and is reviewable ... [on appeal] for abuse of disc | 2 | 3 |
State v. Talleygreen1 sentence1995State v. Evans, 699 S.W.2d 514, 517 [4] (Mo.App.S.D.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1993We are persuaded “that the stronger reasons and the weight of authority sustain the rule that, where a motion for a new trial is made on account of communications to the jury during their deliberations, there is a rebuttable legal presumption that they were prejudicial to the moving party, that this presumption may in some cases be overcome by evidence, and that where competent evidence is offered it is the duty of the trial court to hear and consider it, and that when it does so, and decides the motion thereon, its decision is discretionary, and is reviewable ... [on appeal] for abuse of disc | 1 | 1 |
Holmgren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. 1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. | 1 | 1 |
Holmgren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. 1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clyde Mattox v. United States
green
2 sentences1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. 1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Oborn v. State
green
2 sentences1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. 1984Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149 , 13 S.Ct. 50, 53 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439, 443, 445 , 84 C.C.A. 301 ; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 521, 522 , 30 S.Ct. 588, 591 , 54 L.Ed. 861 , 19 Ann.Cas. 778; Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249 , 126 N.W. 737, 748 , 31 L.R.A. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Brunswick v. Standard Accident Insurance
green
1 sentence1923Co., 278 Mo. 154 , 213 S. W. 50 .] In its character as a presumption it is not evidence, it is a mere rule of law which operates to throw upon the party against whom it is raised the duty of going forward with the evidence. [Thayer, Prel. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Swan v. Munch
green
1 sentence1902Law (2 Ed.), p. 426, and cas. cit.] It is the accepted rule however, that, “the user, to perfect title by prescription to an easement, must be exercised by the owner of the dominant tenement and must be open, peaceable, continuous, and as "of right.” [Railroad v. Bloomington, 167 Ills. 9; Conyers v. Scott, 94 Ky. 123 ; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 ; Hoyt v. Carter, 16 Barb. 212 ; Bushey v. Santiff, 86 Hun 384 ; Costello v. Harris, 162 Pa. St. 397.] This doctrine was recognized by this court in Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387 , and it was there said, “And such ad-verse user for the statutory perio | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Pitzman v. Boyce
green
1 sentence1902Law (2 Ed.), p. 426, and cas. cit.] It is the accepted rule however, that, “the user, to perfect title by prescription to an easement, must be exercised by the owner of the dominant tenement and must be open, peaceable, continuous, and as "of right.” [Railroad v. Bloomington, 167 Ills. 9; Conyers v. Scott, 94 Ky. 123 ; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 ; Hoyt v. Carter, 16 Barb. 212 ; Bushey v. Santiff, 86 Hun 384 ; Costello v. Harris, 162 Pa. St. 397.] This doctrine was recognized by this court in Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387 , and it was there said, “And such ad-verse user for the statutory perio | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Bushey v. Santiff
neutral
1 sentence1902Law (2 Ed.), p. 426, and cas. cit.] It is the accepted rule however, that, “the user, to perfect title by prescription to an easement, must be exercised by the owner of the dominant tenement and must be open, peaceable, continuous, and as "of right.” [Railroad v. Bloomington, 167 Ills. 9; Conyers v. Scott, 94 Ky. 123 ; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 ; Hoyt v. Carter, 16 Barb. 212 ; Bushey v. Santiff, 86 Hun 384 ; Costello v. Harris, 162 Pa. St. 397.] This doctrine was recognized by this court in Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387 , and it was there said, “And such ad-verse user for the statutory perio | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Hoyt v. Carter
neutral
1 sentence1902Law (2 Ed.), p. 426, and cas. cit.] It is the accepted rule however, that, “the user, to perfect title by prescription to an easement, must be exercised by the owner of the dominant tenement and must be open, peaceable, continuous, and as "of right.” [Railroad v. Bloomington, 167 Ills. 9; Conyers v. Scott, 94 Ky. 123 ; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 ; Hoyt v. Carter, 16 Barb. 212 ; Bushey v. Santiff, 86 Hun 384 ; Costello v. Harris, 162 Pa. St. 397.] This doctrine was recognized by this court in Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387 , and it was there said, “And such ad-verse user for the statutory perio | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Conyers v. Scott
neutral
1 sentence1902Law (2 Ed.), p. 426, and cas. cit.] It is the accepted rule however, that, “the user, to perfect title by prescription to an easement, must be exercised by the owner of the dominant tenement and must be open, peaceable, continuous, and as "of right.” [Railroad v. Bloomington, 167 Ills. 9; Conyers v. Scott, 94 Ky. 123 ; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 ; Hoyt v. Carter, 16 Barb. 212 ; Bushey v. Santiff, 86 Hun 384 ; Costello v. Harris, 162 Pa. St. 397.] This doctrine was recognized by this court in Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387 , and it was there said, “And such ad-verse user for the statutory perio | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.