6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Rule 27.26(j); Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987); Futrell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo. banc 1984). 1989Rule 27.26(j); Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987); Futrell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo. banc 1984). | 3 | 3 |
Futrell v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Rule 27.26(j); Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987); Futrell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo. banc 1984). 1989Rule 27.26(j); Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987); Futrell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo. banc 1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2019Likewise, there is no single identifiable legal reason the trial court’s actions were error, save for Mother’s vague reference to “due process” under both “federal and state law.” In order to break down all 6 of the errors and possible legal reasons for reversal, this Court would need to become Mother’s advocate, “craft a cogent legal theory, seine the record for evidence supporting it, and then demonstrate that such error was outcome-determinative.” State v. Williams, 389 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1988See e.g., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ; Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Mo. banc 1987). 1988See e.g., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ; Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Mo. banc 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1987Movant argues that under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) he has a constitutional right to proceed pro se and that his right was violated by the actions of the hearing court. 1987Movant argues that under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) he has a constitutional right to proceed pro se and that his right was violated by the actions of the hearing court. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Carlson
green
1 sentence1981The Supreme Court of North Dakota in State v. Carlson, 258 N.W.2d 253 (N.D.1977), denied a claim where the trial setting was delayed beyond the 90-day period of the North Dakota statute because of conflicts with defense counsel’s schedule interfering with earlier settings. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.