6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glasgow School District v. Howard County Coronergreen1 sentence2023In her petition, Hynes asked the trial court for relief through civil penalties and to “award [her] costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this claim pursuant to RSMo [section] 610.027.3 due to [the DOC’s] willful violation of the Sunshine Law . . . .” These damages depended on both the DOC’s violation of the Sunshine Law, and that the violation was done “purposely” and “knowingly.” See Glasgow, 572 S.W.3d at 548 (holding that the imposition of civil penalties and attorney fees due to a “violation that was done ‘knowingly’ or ‘purposely’” are not separate, independent cla | 1 | 1 |
Neal v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The motion court found, however, that Wallar’s testimony, indicating that he would have proceeded to trial in the absence of the nondisclosure, was not credible. ‘We defer to the motion court’s credibility determinations.” Neal v. State, 379 S.W.3d 209, 217 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. Martinez
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 892 . 1997Id. at 892 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Washington v. Washington
green
1 sentence2005Id. (citing Rule 129.13(b)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hosack v. Hosack
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 867 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.