49 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kindergreen2 sentences2004State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 324-25 (Mo. banc 1996). ‘We are not bound solely by the statements favoring [Appellant’s] position because the ruling on a challenge for cause is to be based on the whole record.” Id. 2004State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 324-25 (Mo. banc 1996). ‘We are not bound solely by the statements favoring [Appellant’s] position because the ruling on a challenge for cause is to be based on the whole record.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
Thummel v. Kinggreen2 sentences1996Rule 84.04(d); Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685 (Mo. banc 1978). 1993See Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lingargreen2 sentences1990State v. Wheat, supra, at 158 ; State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 733 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987); State v. Norris, supra, at 203 . 1989State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986); see also Lingar, 726 S.W.2d at 733 . | 2 | 2 |
Storey v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Storey, 175 S.W.3d at 126 . | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. Altergreen1 sentence2019Jones, 400 S.W.3d at 915 (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mastermark Builders, Inc. v. Echelmeiergreen1 sentence2014State v. Garvey, 328 S.W.3d 408, 414 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bewleygreen1 sentence2013Presumption in Judge-Tried Case “ ‘[I]n a judge-tried case, we presume that the trial judge was not prejudiced by inadmissible evidence and was not influenced by it in reaching a judgment, unless it is clear from the record that the trial judge considered and relied upon the inadmissible evidence.’ ” State v. Bewley, 68 S.W.3d 613, 619 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010State v. Johnson, 244 S.W.3d 144, 158 (Mo. banc 2008). 2010State v. Johnson, 244 S.W.3d 144, 158 (Mo. banc 2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2009Appellant asserts this ruling was in error in that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence revealed “the car was owned by two other people, one of whom came from a family associated with illegal drugs; the small baggie of methamphetamine was possibly hidden under the seat; and there was no evidence presented that [Appellant] could see the methamphetamine or knew it was there.” “We review the denial of a motion for acquittal to determine if the State adduced sufficient evidence to make a sub-missible case.” State v. Davis, 219 S.W 2009“The court must examine the elements of the crime and consider each in turn; reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment; disregarding any contrary evidence; and granting the State all reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2009Appellant asserts this ruling was in error in that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence revealed “the car was owned by two other people, one of whom came from a family associated with illegal drugs; the small baggie of methamphetamine was possibly hidden under the seat; and there was no evidence presented that [Appellant] could see the methamphetamine or knew it was there.” “We review the denial of a motion for acquittal to determine if the State adduced sufficient evidence to make a sub-missible case.” State v. Davis, 219 S.W 2009Appellant asserts this ruling was in error in that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence revealed “the car was owned by two other people, one of whom came from a family associated with illegal drugs; the small baggie of methamphetamine was possibly hidden under the seat; and there was no evidence presented that [Appellant] could see the methamphetamine or knew it was there.” “We review the denial of a motion for acquittal to determine if the State adduced sufficient evidence to make a sub-missible case.” State v. Davis, 219 S.W | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1996Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649 ; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). 1996Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649 ; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. City of Deepwatergreen2 sentences1995The appellate court held that inasmuch as the plaintiffs made no effort to present the evidence in rebuttal, they could not assign the trial court’s ruling as error. 219 S.W.2d at 757 [7]. 1995The appellate court held that inasmuch as the plaintiffs made no effort to present the evidence in rebuttal, they could not assign the trial court's ruling as error. 219 S.W.2d at 757 [7]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Owensgreen1 sentence1991State v. Owens, 759 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hopkinsgreen1 sentence1990A trial court’s discretion to strike veniremen for cause is not unbridled, State v. Hopkins, 687 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo. banc 1985), but determination of a potential juror’s qualifications remains within the broad discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not disturb a ruling on a challenge for cause unless it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences1989State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986); see also Lingar, 726 S.W.2d at 733 . 1989State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986); see also Lingar, 726 S.W.2d at 733 . | 1 | 1 |
O'Dell Blackmon v. Carl White, Superintendentgreen2 sentences1989Blackmon v. White, 825 F.2d 1263, 1265 (8th Cir.1987). 1989Blackmon v. White, 825 F.2d 1263, 1265 (8th Cir.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barksgreen1 sentence1986State v. Barks, 711 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leipusgreen1 sentence1985State v. Leipus, 675 S.W.2d 896, 898 [1-3] (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Murphy v. Carrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hudsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Karnesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wilkersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Morrisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Duensing v. Huschergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Terrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lowegreen | 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. Wheat
green
2 sentences1990"Mindful of the trial court's unique opportunity to observe the venireman during voir dire, an appellate court will not disturb a ruling on a challenge for cause unless it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and a real probability of injury to the complaining party." Id. 1990“Mindful of the trial court’s unique opportunity to observe the venireman during voir dire, an appellate court will not disturb a ruling on a challenge for cause unless it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and a real probability of injury to the complaining party.” Id. | 3 | 1990–1992 |
Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp.
green
1 sentence2015“By commencing this action on the Policy without submitting to an examination under oath, Plaintiff denied Defendant the opportunity to both complete its investigation and to issue a ruling on the claim.” Wiles, 215 F.Supp.2d at 1032 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brasch v. State
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Burke v. Goodman
green
2 sentences2009Burke v. Goodman, 114 S.W.3d 276 , 278-79 n. 4 (Mo.App.2003). . 2009Burke v. Goodman, 114 S.W.3d 276 , 278-79 n. 4 (Mo.App.2003). [4] Appellant's points are not substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 84.04(d)(1), but we exercise our discretion to address her contentions as we understand them. [5] These terms seem to derive from software "shrinkwrap" licenses, which purport to become effective when a purchaser removes the cellophane shrinkwrap and opens the software package. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McKown v. State
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 41 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Treadway
green
2 sentences1996Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649 ; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). 1996Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649 ; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Mayes v. Newberry
green
2 sentences1996Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649 ; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). 1996Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649 ; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Simpson v. Smith
green
1 sentence1994Simpson, 771 S.W.2d at 371 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Norris
green
1 sentence1990State v. Wheat, supra, at 158 ; State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 733 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987); State v. Norris, supra, at 203 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Marquez v. Texas
green
1 sentence1990State v. Wheat, supra, at 158 ; State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 733 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987); State v. Norris, supra, at 203 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Rainwater v. Merchants & Farmers Bank
green
1 sentence1990State v. Wheat, supra, at 158 ; State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 733 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 206 , 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987); State v. Norris, supra, at 203 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Gilmore
green
1 sentence1986Id. at 941 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Prewitt v. Parkway School District neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Barks v. Turnbeau green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Kirkland green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Kelley v. Hudson green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Daniels v. Dillinger green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Phillips v. Vrooman green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. Banks neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| State v. Palmer green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| S. v. G green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Petry v. Hopping green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Banks v. Morris Company green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
| Matthews v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Tyson v. Farm & Home Savings & Loan Ass'n neutral | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Leach v. Cargill neutral | 1 | 1919–1919 |
| Frost v. Redford neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railroad v. Aubuchon neutral | 1 | 1908–1908 |
| Commonwealth v. McNamee neutral | 1 | 1895–1895 |
| Clements v. Greenwell neutral | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.