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 1976–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michel v. Michelgreen2 sentences2001Shaw reiterated and applied the four-pronged test that was first enunciated in Michel v. Michel, 834 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo.App. 2001Riley reiterated and applied the four-pronged test that was first enunciated in Michel v. Michel, 834 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Fleming v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co.green1 sentence1997As with the doctrine of collateral estoppel, there is a four-pronged test used to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata should apply in a particular case: “In order to have estoppel by a former judgment [res judicata], there must be: 1) identity of the thing sued for; 2) identity of the cause of action; 3) identity of the persons and parties to the action; and 4) identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Fleming v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co., 796 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atkinsgreen1 sentence1976It was not until the filing of the new trial motion that defendant objected to competency of the witness on the basis of the four pronged test set out in the Burnam case, as approved by the court in State v. Jones, supra. A party may not alter or broaden on appeal the scope of his trial objection, State v. Atkins, 494 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Mo.1973); therefore, since defendant’s sole objection at trial was limited to Janice’s understanding of the oath and the obligation to speak the truth, we hold that is the only question preserved for our consideration. | 1 | 1 |
Hildreth v. Keygreen1 sentence1976See Hildreth v. Key, 341 S.W.2d 601, 608-613 (Mo.App.1960) where the appellate court held that a trial judge may not be convicted of error in overruling an objection on a theory or ground not brought to his attention at the time. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Riley v. Riley
green
1 sentence2001In her first point, mother claims that the trial court erred in failing to apply the four-pronged test enunciated in Riley v. Riley, 904 S.W.2d 272 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bresnahan v. May Department Stores Co.
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1983State v. Stewart, supra, at 759 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Paxton
green
1 sentence1982State v. Howell, 581 S.W.2d 461 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Paxton, supra. A. Length of Delay. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Howell
green
1 sentence1982State v. Howell, 581 S.W.2d 461 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Paxton, supra. A. Length of Delay. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.