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 2004–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Kellygreen2 sentences2013The Western District subsequently discussed Moreau’s holding in Kelly v. Kelly, 245 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Mo.App.2008), and concluded that it was “in some sense a misnomer to describe the concurrent jurisdiction doctrine as depriving one court of jurisdiction.” Instead, “ ‘[concurrent jurisdiction’ is simply a phrase describing the legal reality that more than one court has the legal authority to decide a matter.” Id. 3 We explained that, because both the circuit court and probate court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the real issue in Moreau was not whether the circuit court lacked j 2013The Western District subsequently discussed Moreau’s holding in Kelly v. Kelly, 245 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Mo.App.2008), and concluded that it was “in some sense a misnomer to describe the concurrent jurisdiction doctrine as depriving one court of jurisdiction.” Instead, “ ‘[concurrent jurisdiction’ is simply a phrase describing the legal reality that more than one court has the legal authority to decide a matter.” Id. 3 We explained that, because both the circuit court and probate court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the real issue in Moreau was not whether the circuit court lacked j | 1 | 2 |
Burleson v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MOgreen1 sentence2004Burleson v. Director of Revenue, 92 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence2004Appellant claims that to do so was a violation of his right to due process because he was already committed to DMH as a CSP, a commitment which was in “full force and effect until terminated by a court” and that “the concurrent jurisdiction doctrine confers jurisdiction [of] a matter [on] the first court to act, and denies jurisdiction to a subsequent court over the same matter.” The standard of review in court-tried cases is established law: the judgment of the trial court is to be affirmed unless “there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Moreau
green
2 sentences2013The court explained that the circuit court “ran afoul of the concurrent jurisdiction doctrine,” which provides that, “ ‘if two courts can exercise jurisdiction over a particular person and subject, the court that first exercises such jurisdiction does so to the exclusion of subsequent intervention by the second court.’” Id. (citation omitted). 2008Id. at 405-06 . | 2 | 2008–2013 |
Care & Treatment of Barlow v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2004According to Appellant, “[t]hese are the sorts of conflicts between courts of equal stature that the concurrent jurisdiction doctrine is intended [sic] to avoid.” The western district of this court, in Barlow v. State, 114 S.W.3d 328 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2004–2008 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Lieurance
green
1 sentence2005In the Matter of Lieurance, 130 S.W.3d 693 (MoApp. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. Standefer v. England
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.