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 1984–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonaghgreen2 sentences2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] 2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Tracy v. Dandurandgreen2 sentences2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] 2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] | 1 | 1 |
Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinerygreen2 sentences2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] 2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings John Doe Co. v. United States of America, Movant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2009See also State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Mo. banc 2003), and McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 160 (Wolff, J., concurring). [16] The expert witness rule proposed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers is quoted in footnote 13. [1] Tracy v. Dandurand, 30 S.W.3d at 835 . [2] Id. [3] Friedenthal, Discovery and Use of an Adverse Party's Expert Information, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 455, 482 (1962). [4] Tracy, 30 S.W.3d at 834 ; Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740, 742 (E.D.Mo.1983). [5] | 1 | 1 |
Stafford v. Lyongreen1 sentence1993It is well estab *869 lished that the extent and scope of cross-examination in a civil action is within the discretion of the trial court and “will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.” Stafford v. Lyon, 413 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Mo.1967). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1984See Comment, The Psychologist as Expert Witness: Science in the Courtroom?, 38 Md.Law Rev. 539, 541 (1979). 2 This is the same query as to whether a principle has “gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs.” State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d at 371 ; McCormick, supra, § 203, at 489; see also State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d at 310 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitted v. Healthline Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005In Whitted , an expert witness for the defense stated in his deposition that he could not pinpoint whether the patient’s death was caused by one of two conditions. 90 S.W.3d at 477 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Stout
green
1 sentence1984See Comment, The Psychologist as Expert Witness: Science in the Courtroom?, 38 Md.Law Rev. 539, 541 (1979). 2 This is the same query as to whether a principle has “gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs.” State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d at 371 ; McCormick, supra, § 203, at 489; see also State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d at 310 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.