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 1 courts 1978–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mills v. Federal Soldiers Home of Missourigreen2 sentences2013Soldiers Home, 549 S.W.2d 862, 868 (Mo. banc 1977) (no injustice would result in applying the general rule because respondent was represented by counsel at the administrative agency hearing, was afforded opportunity to contest the notice, and received ample and timely notice). 1999Soldiers Home, 549 S.W.2d 862, 868 (Mo.banc 1977) (because respondent was represented by counsel at the administrative agency hearing, was afforded opportunity to contest the notice, and received ample and timely notice, no injustice would result from applying the general rule). | 2 | 2 |
Psychiatric Healthcare Corp. v. Department of Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2006Servs., 100 S.W.3d 891, 900 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Greentree Properties, Inc. v. Kisseegreen1 sentence2005Greentree Properties, Inc. v. Kissee, 92 S.W.3d 289, 292 (Mo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Hankins v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2002An administrative agency rule is not unreasonable just because it may be burdensome to a particular person, Han-kins, 998 S.W.2d at 881 [4], or simply because of a subjective feeling that the regulation is arbitrary or unduly burdensome. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Linton v. Missouri Veterinary Medical Board
green
1 sentence2002Linton, 988 S.W.2d at 517 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Smith v. Thompson, Trustee
neutral
2 sentences1978Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure, § 41, p. 351; Smith v. Thompson, 234 Mo.App. 1151 , 137 S.W.2d 981 (1940). 1978Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure, § 41, p. 351; Smith v. Thompson, 234 Mo.App. 1151 , 137 S.W.2d 981 (1940). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.