53 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2019 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. Rogersgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Rogers, 51 S.W.3d 879, 880 (Mo.App.2001). 2009See State v. Rogers, 51 S.W.3d 879, 880 (Mo.App.2001). | 5 | 5 |
Weinschenk v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Weinschenk v. State, 203 S.W.3d 201, 211 (Mo. banc 2006). 2014Weinschenk v. State, 203 S.W.3d 201, 211 (Mo. banc 2006). | 3 | 3 |
Davis v. Research Medical Centergreen2 sentences2003Id. 2002Id. | 2 | 5 |
In Re Adoption of CMBRgreen1 sentence2019“The clear, cogent, and convincing standard of proof is met when evidence instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” In re C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793, 815 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. banc 2017). 6 5 As noted previously in this opinion, Mother requested therapeutic visits with the Children via texts with Father in March 2018, which was prior to the commencemen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diaz-Reygreen1 sentence2015“In determining if a federal statute preempts a state cause of action, the purpose of Congress in enacting the federal statute is the ultimate touchstone.” State v. Diaz-Rey, 397 S.W.3d 5, 8 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (quoting Connelly v. Iolab Corp., 927 S.W.2d 848, 851 (Mo. banc 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Michael v. Treasurergreen1 sentence2015Section 287.020.6 defines the term “total disability” as the “inability to return to any employment and not merely mean inability to return to the employment in which the employee was engaged at the time of the accident.” “The approved legal standard for determining permanent total disability applies two tests: in general, whether the claimant is able to compete on the open job market; and, specifically, whether an employer would reasonably be expected to employ the claimant in his or her present physical condition.” Michael v. Treasurer, 334 S.W.3d 654, 663 (Mo.App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Connelly v. Iolab Corp.green1 sentence2015“In determining if a federal statute preempts a state cause of action, the purpose of Congress in enacting the federal statute is the ultimate touchstone.” State v. Diaz-Rey, 397 S.W.3d 5, 8 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (quoting Connelly v. Iolab Corp., 927 S.W.2d 848, 851 (Mo. banc 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Pile v. Lake Regional Health Systemgreen2 sentences2012In that event, it is necessary to determine whether the claimant is equally exposed to this hazard or risk in normal, non-employment life. 321 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Mo.App.2010). 2012In that event, it is necessary to determine whether the claimant is equally exposed to this hazard or risk in normal, non-employment life. 321 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Mo.App.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Asher v. Lombardigreen1 sentence2012A candidate’s access to the ballot or the right to run for office is not a “fundamental right.” Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 963 , 102 S.Ct. 2836 , 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982); Asher v. Lombardi, 877 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Mo. banc 1994). (3) Level of Scrutiny The second step of the analysis requires the application of the appropriate level of scrutiny to the challenged statute. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sidebottomgreen1 sentence2010White, 291 S.W.3d at 359 . “[P]lain error will seldom be found in unobjected closing argument.” State v. Kempker, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992). “[A]lleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kempkergreen1 sentence2010White, 291 S.W.3d at 359 . “[P]lain error will seldom be found in unobjected closing argument.” State v. Kempker, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992). “[A]lleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2009“Relief under this standard *375 requires that a defendant go beyond a mere showing of demonstrable prejudice to show manifest prejudice affecting his substantial rights.” State v. Walker, 972 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brooksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Toole v. Bechtel Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Anthonygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robinsongreen | 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. Stanley
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2009“If facially substantial grounds are found to exist, we then move to the second step of this analysis and determine whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.” Stanley, 124 S.W.3d at 77 . | 6 | 2004–2012 |
Fugate v. Fugate
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2014Id. | 3 | 2014–2019 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2013“If facially substantial grounds are found to exist, the appellate court should then move to the second step of this analysis and engage in plain error review to determine whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.” Id. | 3 | 2013–2016 |
State v. McCleary
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Purkett v. Elem
green
2 sentences2014In conducting the third stage of the analysis, it is important to keep in mind that “the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and. never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 . 2014In conducting the third stage of the analysis, it is important to keep in mind that “the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and. never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 . | 2 | 2011–2014 |
Flemmings v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
In Re At
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
In Re As
green
2 sentences2003In re A.S., 38 S.W.3d 478 , 486 (Mo.App.2001) Mother presents one point on appeal. 2003In re A.S., 38 S.W.3d 478 , 486 (Mo.App.2001) Mother presents one point on appeal. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
In Re JLM
green
1 sentence2019In re J.L.M., 64 S.W.3d at 924 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
S.S.S. v. C.V.S.
green
1 sentence2019“The clear, cogent, and convincing standard of proof is met when evidence instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” In re C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793, 815 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. banc 2017). 6 5 As noted previously in this opinion, Mother requested therapeutic visits with the Children via texts with Father in March 2018, which was prior to the commencemen | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Floyd
green
1 sentence2015“If we so conclude, we may then proceed to the second step of the analysis to consider whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice actually resulted from the error.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Glover
green
2 sentences2012If the second step of the analysis is required, the court must determine “whether the ‘suggestive procedures [as found] have so tainted the identification as to lead to a substantial likelihood that the pretrial identification was not reliable.’ ” Id. (quoting Glover, 951 S.W.2d at 362 ). 2012If the second step of the analysis is required, the court must determine “whether the ‘suggestive procedures [as found] have so tainted the identification as to lead to a substantial likelihood that the pretrial identification was not reliable.’ ” Id. (quoting Glover, 951 S.W.2d at 362 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Clements v. Fashing
green
2 sentences2012A candidate’s access to the ballot or the right to run for office is not a “fundamental right.” Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 963 , 102 S.Ct. 2836 , 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982); Asher v. Lombardi, 877 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Mo. banc 1994). (3) Level of Scrutiny The second step of the analysis requires the application of the appropriate level of scrutiny to the challenged statute. 2012A candidate’s access to the ballot or the right to run for office is not a “fundamental right.” Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 963 , 102 S.Ct. 2836 , 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982); Asher v. Lombardi, 877 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Mo. banc 1994). (3) Level of Scrutiny The second step of the analysis requires the application of the appropriate level of scrutiny to the challenged statute. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Partain
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Muhammad
green
1 sentence2011“If we so conclude, we may then proceed to the second step of the analysis to consider whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice actually resulted from the error.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. White
green
1 sentence2010White, 291 S.W.3d at 359 . “[P]lain error will seldom be found in unobjected closing argument.” State v. Kempker, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992). “[A]lleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hernandez v. New York
green
2 sentences2009And as such I think it would be a bad choice for the state.” (Tr. 128) A “race-neutral explanation” in the context of a Batson challenge simply means “an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). 2009And as such I think it would be a bad choice for the state.” (Tr. 128) A “race-neutral explanation” in the context of a Batson challenge simply means “an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Campbell green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Stewart green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| International Shoe Co. v. Washington green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Sloan-Roberts v. Morse Chevrolet, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Adkins v. Hazelwood School District green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.