set out standard (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

set out standard in Missouri

7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2023 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green
mo · 2013 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017In Meyer v. Purcell, this Court set out the standard for making a submissible case of punitive damages in a legal malpractice case, namely that the defendant's conduct "showed complete indifference to or a conscious disregard for [the plaintiff's] rights," which required proof that the defendant intentionally acted "either by a wanton, willful or outrageous act, or reckless disregard for an act's consequences (from which evil motive is inferred)." 405 S.W.3d 572 , 575-76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ; see also Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 410 S.W.3d 623 , 630-31 (Mo. banc 2013) (sa

11
State v. Beckgreen
moctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006In State v. Beck, 167 S.W.3d 767, 781 (Mo.App.2005), this court set out the standard for statutory interpretation: Statutory interpretation is purely a question of law, which we determine de novo.

11
Crane v. Centerre Bank of Columbiagreen
moctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998In the opinion in Crane v. Centerre Bank of Columbia, 691 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Mo.App.1985), this court set out the requirement which must be met by a plaintiff in establishing a constructive trust.

11
Davis v. Research Medical Centergreen
moctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995The court set out the standard of review of an award made by the commission where the issue is a question of law in Davis v. Research Medical Center, 903 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Mo.App.W.D.1995). [A]wards of the commission “which are clearly the interpretation or application of the law, as distinguished from a determination of facts, are not binding upon us and fall within our province of review and correction.

11
Merriman v. Ben Gutman Truck Service, Inc.green
mo · 1965 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995And where the finding of ultimate fact is reached by the application of rules of law instead of by a process of natural reasoning from the facts alone, it is a conclusion of law and subject to our reversal.’ Merriman v. Ben Gutman Truck Serv., Inc., 392 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Mo.1965) (citations omitted) (quoting Williams v. Anderson Air Activities, 319 S.W.2d 61, 65 (Mo.App.1958)).

11
Williams v. Anderson Air Activitiesgreen
moctapp · 1958 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995And where the finding of ultimate fact is reached by the application of rules of law instead of by a process of natural reasoning from the facts alone, it is a conclusion of law and subject to our reversal.’ Merriman v. Ben Gutman Truck Serv., Inc., 392 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Mo.1965) (citations omitted) (quoting Williams v. Anderson Air Activities, 319 S.W.2d 61, 65 (Mo.App.1958)).

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Williams green
mo · 2018
1 sentence

2023In Williams, the Court set out factors that illustrate the legal analysis required 9 by the constitutional provision, but cautioned that the relevance of these factors will vary depending on the case, “as will the weight to be afforded any one factor in particular.” Id.

12023–2023
Meyer v. Purcell green
moctapp · 2013
1 sentence

2017In Meyer v. Purcell, this Court set out the standard for making a submissible case of punitive damages in a legal malpractice case, namely that the defendant's conduct "showed complete indifference to or a conscious disregard for [the plaintiff's] rights," which required proof that the defendant intentionally acted "either by a wanton, willful or outrageous act, or reckless disregard for an act's consequences (from which evil motive is inferred)." 405 S.W.3d 572 , 575-76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ; see also Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 410 S.W.3d 623 , 630-31 (Mo. banc 2013) (sa

12017–2017
Porter v. Erickson Transport Corp. green
moctapp · 1993
1 sentence

2017Other cases have said conduct that amounts to a conscious disregard for the safety of others so as to constitute recklessness "is the legal equivalent of willfulness." Porter v. Erickson Transport Corporation, 851 S.W.2d 725 , 747-48 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993).

12017–2017
In Re the Care & Treatment of Norton green
mo · 2004
2 sentences

2006This Court set out the test for considering a claim that the SVP statute violates detainees' equal protection rights in In re Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2003): In deciding whether a statute violates the Equal Protection Clause, this Court engages in a two-part analysis.

2006This Court set out the test for considering a claim that the SVP statute violates detainees’ equal protection rights in In re Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2003): In deciding whether a statute violates the Equal Protection Clause, this Court engages in a two-part analysis.

12006–2006
State v. Leeper neutral
mo · 1883
1 sentence

1963As said in State v. Leeper, 78 Mo. 470 , its use in this form is almost canonized, and this court has often admonished the circuit courts that it is better to adhere to instructions that have received the approval of this court and not to attempt definitions which add nothing to the meaning of well-understood terms.” This approved instruction together with the same admonition to use it was set out in State v. Howard, 324 Mo. 145 , 23 S.W.2d 11, 15 .

11963–1963
State v. Nerzinger green
mo · 1909
2 sentences

1963In State v. Nerzinger, 220 Mo. 36 , 119 S.W. 379 , the court set out the instruction as follows : “ ‘If, upon consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, you should acquit; but a doubt, to authorize an acquittal on that ground, ought to be a substantial doubt touching the defendant’s guilt, and not a mere possibility of his innocence.’ ” The court then commented, “It has often been remarked by this court that this last instruction embodied the true doctrine as to reasonable doubt in criminal causes.

1963In State v. Nerzinger, 220 Mo. 36 , 119 S.W. 379 , the court set out the instruction as follows : “ ‘If, upon consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, you should acquit; but a doubt, to authorize an acquittal on that ground, ought to be a substantial doubt touching the defendant’s guilt, and not a mere possibility of his innocence.’ ” The court then commented, “It has often been remarked by this court that this last instruction embodied the true doctrine as to reasonable doubt in criminal causes.

11963–1963
State v. Howard green
· 1929
2 sentences

1963As said in State v. Leeper, 78 Mo. 470 , its use in this form is almost canonized, and this court has often admonished the circuit courts that it is better to adhere to instructions that have received the approval of this court and not to attempt definitions which add nothing to the meaning of well-understood terms.” This approved instruction together with the same admonition to use it was set out in State v. Howard, 324 Mo. 145 , 23 S.W.2d 11, 15 .

1963As said in State v. Leeper, 78 Mo. 470 , its use in this form is almost canonized, and this court has often admonished the circuit courts that it is better to adhere to instructions that have received the approval of this court and not to attempt definitions which add nothing to the meaning of well-understood terms.” This approved instruction together with the same admonition to use it was set out in State v. Howard, 324 Mo. 145 , 23 S.W.2d 11, 15 .

11963–1963

Where else courts name it

MS 60 (1974–2017) AL 59 (1981–2023) TX 40 (1980–2005) LA 33 (1983–2019) FL 14 (1982–2019) NC 13 (1984–2022) ID 13 (1983–2023) WV 11 (1986–2005) KS 9 (1937–1999) TN 8 (1983–2015) AR 7 (1976–2022) OR 7 (1982–2025) MO 7 (1963–2023) CA 7 (1978–2022) IN 7 (1974–2010) OK 6 (1974–2025) OH 6 (1977–2003) MA 5 (1987–2013) WI 5 (1979–1997) MD 5 (1975–1990) MN 5 (1982–1996) IL 4 (1973–1998) NM 4 (1948–2021) NY 4 (1923–2024) MT 3 (1984–1997) NJ 3 (1996–2016) MI 3 (1978–1996) WA 3 (1979–2020) KY 2 (2018–2021) SD 2 (1985–1995) HI 2 (1990–2012) UT 2 (1982–2005)

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