Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nicholson v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper Ming, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the mov-ant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.’ ” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion that wa 2014Id. 23 Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper filing, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion t | 2 | 2 |
Gehrke v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper Ming, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the mov-ant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.’ ” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion that wa 2014Id. 23 Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper filing, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion t | 2 | 2 |
Spells v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper Ming, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the mov-ant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.’ ” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion that wa 2014Id. 23 Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper filing, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion t | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. State
green
2 sentences2018All concur The active interference doctrine provides that "where an inmate prepares his initial motion and does all that he reasonably can do to ensure that it is filed on time, tardiness resulting solely from the active interference of a third party beyond the inmate's control may be excused and the waiver imposed by Rule 29.15(b) not enforced." Price v. State , 422 S.W.3d 292 , 307 (Mo. banc 2014). 2017The majority in Price held that McFadden "is ,an application of the active interference exception, not an expansion of the abandonment doctrine beyond the carefully circumscribed environs of Luleff and Sanders." 422 S.W.3d at 303 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
McFadden v. State
green
2 sentences2014Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper Ming, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the mov-ant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.’ ” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion that wa 2014Id. 23 Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 57-58 (Mo. banc 2009). 7 The following year, the Court’s understanding of McFadden as an application of the active interference exception in the same vein as Nicholson and Spells was unmistakable: The second judicially created exception to [the filing deadlines in] Rule 29.15 occurs, “in very rare circumstances ... [in which] our courts have found an improper filing, caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant, justified a late receipt of the motion by the proper court.” McFadden, 256 S.W.3d at 108 ; see Nicholson, 151 S.W.3d at 371 (motion t | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Fields v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 50 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Propst v. State
green
2 sentences2019As in Propst, “the active interference exception does not apply in this case because [Muhammad] did not prepare the motion or take any steps to attempt to file it on his own [prior to the 90-day deadline].” 535 S.W.3d at 737 . 10 434. 2019The Missouri Supreme Court excused the movant’s untimely filing of his initial 29.15(b) motion “because the circuit court misinformed him about the appropriate deadlines to file his motion during his sentencing colloquy and he was entitled to rely upon this misinformation when determining the filing deadline.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |