6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023“In the absence of some suggestion of mental instability, there is no duty on counsel to initiate an investigation of the mental condition of an accused.” Henderson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 508, 511 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Division of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2010To satisfy the preponderance standard, a party has the burden of proving that “a proposition is more likely true than not.” See Morgan v. State, 272 S.W.3d 909, 912 (Mo.App.2009). | 1 | 1 |
State Board of Nursing v. Berrygreen1 sentence2010As further explained in State Board of Nursing v. Berry, 32 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Mo.App.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted): ‘Preponderance of the evidence’ is defined as that degree of evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows the fact to be proved to be more probable than not. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Director of Revenue State of Mo.green2 sentences2003Green v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 936, 938-939 (Mo.App.1998); Meyer v. Director of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 230, 235-236 (Mo.App.2000); Rhodes v. Director of Revenue, 994 S.W.2d 597, 601-02 (Mo.App.1999); Hamm v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Mo.App.2000). 2003See Green, 961 S.W.2d at 938 ; Rhodes, 994 S.W.2d at 599 . | 1 | 1 |
Rhodes v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2003Green v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 936, 938-939 (Mo.App.1998); Meyer v. Director of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 230, 235-236 (Mo.App.2000); Rhodes v. Director of Revenue, 994 S.W.2d 597, 601-02 (Mo.App.1999); Hamm v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Mo.App.2000). 2003See Green, 961 S.W.2d at 938 ; Rhodes, 994 S.W.2d at 599 . | 1 | 1 |
Hamm v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2003Green v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 936, 938-939 (Mo.App.1998); Meyer v. Director of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 230, 235-236 (Mo.App.2000); Rhodes v. Director of Revenue, 994 S.W.2d 597, 601-02 (Mo.App.1999); Hamm v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Meyer v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2003Green v. Director of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 936, 938-939 (Mo.App.1998); Meyer v. Director of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 230, 235-236 (Mo.App.2000); Rhodes v. Director of Revenue, 994 S.W.2d 597, 601-02 (Mo.App.1999); Hamm v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hubbard v. State
green
1 sentence2023“This is a lower burden of proof than the preponderance standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2019Notably, the Morrissey Court required something "more than" probable cause but never expressly invoked the preponderance standard. 408 U.S. at 488 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 . 2019Notably, the Morrissey Court required something "more than" probable cause but never expressly invoked the preponderance standard. 408 U.S. at 488 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences2014In evaluating the three Eldridge factors, the Court concluded that use of a preponderance of the evidence standard was inconsistent with due process in termination of parental rights proceedings because “the private interest affected is commanding; the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is substantial; and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that standard is comparatively slight.” Id. at 758, 102 S.Ct. 1388 . 2014The relevant question, then, “is whether a preponderance standard fairly allocates the risk of an erroneous factfind-ing between these two parties.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000“This is a lower burden of proof than the preponderance standard.” Id. 2000"This is a lower burden of proof than the preponderance standard." Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.