abuse of discretion standard in Missouri

2015State v. Million, 794 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Mo. banc 1990); Avent, 432 S.W.3d at 252 .

2001“We review under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id.; State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 183-84 (Mo. banc 1990).

2024Brown’s Motion for New Trial claimed “[t]he [trial] court erred in not ordering disclosure of juvenile records pertaining to [Victim], or in the alternative, excluding witnesses called by the [S]tate in regards to juvenile matters,” citing “[f]undamental fairness” and alleged “the [S]tate was given unfettered access to every juvenile document possible that pertained to [Brown]” and that “[f]rom that, the [S]tate was able to dig up anything that even came close to being incriminating.” The motion also claimed “there is a reasonable likelihood that denial of this discovery affected the outcome o

2019State v. Taylor, 134 S.W.3d 21, 26 (Mo. banc 2004); State v. Donovan, 539 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

2023Brungard v. Risky's Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685, 687-88 (Mo. banc 2007).

2015“We will reverse the trial court’s ruling under the abuse of discretion standard only when the ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks our sense of justice and indicates to us that the trial court did not carefully consider the case.” Id.

2012The trial court’s discretion is abused “ ‘when it is so clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.’ ” Id. at 690 (quoting In re E.D.M., 126 S.W.3d 488, 497 (Mo.App.

2011The trial court's discretion is abused "`when it is so clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.'" Id. at 690 (quoting In re E.D.M., 126 S.W.3d 488, 497 (Mo.App.

2013In re P.L.O., 131 S.W.3d 782, 789 (Mo. banc 2004).

2007“The best interests prong must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and an appellate court reviews that ruling per an abuse of discretion standard.” In the Interest of A.Y.M., 154 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Mo.App.2004), citing (In re P.L.O., 131 S.W.3d 782, 788-89 [7, 8] (Mo. banc 2004)).

2014“Claims that a trial court denied meaningful discovery are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Hawkins, 328 S.W.3d 799, 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010).

2014There’s no evidence to support it. [Emphasis added.] *296 “Claims that a trial court denied meaningful discovery are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Hawkins, 328 S.W.3d 799, 808 (Mo.App.

2014Conversely, the Union argues the appropriate standard of review is Murphy v. Carrón ( 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)), citing Judge Fischer’s concurring opinion from Boresi In his concurrence, Judge Fischer noted that “in cases in which the court below dismisses the petition following answer or motion directed to the merits of the controversy and in doing so determines a question of fact or law ... the appellate court will affirm the circuit court’s denial of [ ] a writ unless it is not *27 supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declar

2004We review an award of child support under both the Murphy v. Carrón, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), standard and an abuse of discretion standard.

2023Id. at 816 ; J.A.R., 426 S.W.3d at 626 .

2023C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d at 816 ; see J.A.R., 426 S.W.3d at 626 .

2023"This court reviews the grant of a writ of mandamus under an abuse of discretion standard." Burnett, 237 S.W.3d at 238 .

2018"This court reviews the grant of a writ of mandamus under an abuse of discretion standard." Burnett, 237 S.W.3d at 238 .

2000K-Mart Corp. v. Holliger, 986 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo. banc 1999) (denial of a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens is discretionary with the trial court); Staples, 895 S.W.2d at 266 (involuntary dismissal for petitioner’s failure to comply with a prior court order with regard to maintenance is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard).

1997Staples v. Staples, 895 S.W.2d 265 (Mo.App.1995)[l-3].

2022Standard of Review “To the extent that a court bases its venue ruling on factual matters and inferences, this court reviews the trial court’s ruling under an abuse of discretion standard.” McCoy v. The Hershewe Law Firm, P.C., 366 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Mo. App. 2012).

2022“To the extent that a court bases its venue ruling on factual matters and inferences, this court reviews the trial court’s ruling under an abuse of discretion standard.” McCoy v. The Hershewe Law Firm, P.C., 366 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Mo. App. 2012).

2014Only if the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous will an appellate court reverse.''" Emmett, 346 S.W.3d at 419 (quoting State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (quoting State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Mo. banc 1990))).

2005Where a trial court has granted defendant’s motion to suppress, “we review the trial court’s decision on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard,” State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Mo.App.1999), that is, the decision will be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous.

2014"Generally, the court's decision on a motion to disqualify is reviewed based on the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Walters, 241 S.W.3d 435, 437 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007).

2014"Generally, the court's decision on a motion to disqualify is reviewed based on the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Walters, 241 S.W.3d 435, 437 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007).

2010Id. at 181 ; § 211.447.5. "`The best interests prong must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and an appellate court reviews that ruling per an abuse of discretion standard.'" Id. at 181 (quoting In the Interest of A.Y.M., 154 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Mo.App.

2010Id. at 181 ; § 211.447.5. ‘“The best interests prong must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and an appellate court reviews that ruling per an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Id. at 181 (quoting In the Interest of A.Y.M., 154 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Mo.App.

2022"Likewise, this Court reviews probable cause determinations de novo under an abuse of discretion standard and gives deference to the inferences the trial court made from the historical facts, including the trial court's credibility determinations." Id. "[B]ut the ultimate assessment of whether the historical facts and 7 inferences satisfy the legal standard for probable cause remains subject to de novo review." Stanton v. Dir. of Revenue, 616 S.W.3d 398 , 407 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020).

2021We disagree. 6 Tarwater argues in his brief that Nace "left open . . . whether a driver could be so impaired by intoxication that the driver is rendered incapable of . . . refusal." [Respondent's brief, p. 23] We need not address that issue, as Tarwater was not rendered incapable of refusing by his intoxication, but instead expressly vocalized his refusal to submit to a test, establishing as a matter of law that he had the physical ability to refuse to submit, and exercised that physical ability of his own volition. 14 The trial court found that "[t]here were reasonable grounds to believe [Tar

2003In 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.

2005In re A.T., 88 S.W.3d 903, 908 (Mo.App.2002). .

2005In re A.T., 88 S.W.3d 903, 908 (Mo.App.2002). [4] References to statutes are to RSMo 2000.

2003K.C.M., 85 S.W.3d at 689 .

2003K.C.M., 85 S.W.3d at 689 .

2024In those cases, the standard of review was “that the appellate court will affirm the circuit court’s denial of a writ unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law standard, not the abuse of discretion standard.” Boresi, 396 S.W.3d at 365 n.7 (Fischer, J., separate opinion).

2014Conversely, the Union argues the appropriate standard of review is Murphy v. Carrón ( 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)), citing Judge Fischer’s concurring opinion from Boresi In his concurrence, Judge Fischer noted that “in cases in which the court below dismisses the petition following answer or motion directed to the merits of the controversy and in doing so determines a question of fact or law ... the appellate court will affirm the circuit court’s denial of [ ] a writ unless it is not *27 supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declar

2023“Accordingly, we review the denial of remittitur of punitive damages using an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840, 849 (Mo. banc 1996)).

2023“For punitive damages, an abuse of discretion is established only when the size of the award is manifestly unjust, and so disproportionate to the relevant factors that it reveals improper motives or a clear absence of the honest exercise of judgment.” Id. (quoting Martin v. Survivair Respirators, Inc., 298 S.W.3d 23, 35 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)).

2023State v. Norris, 237 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007).

2023State v. Norris, 237 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007).

2022State v. Selvy, 462 S.W.3d 756, 764 (Mo.App.2015).

2015State v. Selvy, 462 S.W.3d 756, 764 (Mo.App.2015).

2021See Emerson, 573 S.W.3d at 99 (quoting Tramble, 383 S.W.3d at 37 ). 13 Specifically, because Straughter was not entitled to the Castle-Doctrine Instruction, whether or not the venire panel was exposed to the concept of the Castle Doctrine did not prejudicially impact the outcome of the selected jury’s deliberations.

2019To be granted relief on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard, the defendant must show he was prejudiced by the trial court’s error “to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different had the error not been committed.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (citing State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 537 , 540 (Mo. banc 2010)).

2020Coyle, 408 S.W.3d at 289 ; Williams, 281 S.W.3d at 872 ; see also Bella v. Turner, 30 S.W.3d 892, 897 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (noting we will affirm a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it is correct for any reason).

2020Coyle, 408 S.W.3d at 289 ; Williams, 281 S.W.3d at 872 ; see also Bella v. Turner, 30 S.W.3d 892, 897 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (noting we will affirm a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it is correct for any reason).