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.
7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Companygreen2 sentences1983Louis Public Service Co., 421 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Mo. banc 1967), and Murphy v. Land, 420 S.W.2d 505, 507 (Mo.1967), both of which declare that deviations from MAI create the presumption of prejudicial error unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from the deviation. 1972Brown, supra; Houston, supra. We must accordingly rule that the giving of this instruction established a presumption of prejudicial error which may have tended to influence the amount of the verdict. | 1 | 2 |
State of Missouri v. Juan Madrigal, Jr.green1 sentence2025“A trial court’s failure to comply with the MAI-CR and its corresponding Notes on Use raises a presumption of prejudicial error.” Madrigal, 652 S.W.3d at 770. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sprygreen1 sentence2022King v. State, 638 S.W.3d 113 , 119 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citing Rule 28.02); see also State v. Arnold, 397 S.W.3d 521, 528 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (citing Spry, 252 S.W.3d at 266 ) (noting that omission of an instructional definition required by MAI-CR is presumed to be prejudicial error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arnoldgreen1 sentence2022King v. State, 638 S.W.3d 113 , 119 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citing Rule 28.02); see also State v. Arnold, 397 S.W.3d 521, 528 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (citing Spry, 252 S.W.3d at 266 ) (noting that omission of an instructional definition required by MAI-CR is presumed to be prejudicial error). | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. Gosneygreen1 sentence1989Higgins v. Gosney, 435 S.W.2d 653, 660 (Mo.1968). | 1 | 1 |
City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Gravesgreen1 sentence1983The same rule of presumptive error was stated in In Re Estate of Passman, 537 S.W.2d 380, 384 (Mo. banc 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Landgreen1 sentence1983Louis Public Service Co., 421 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Mo. banc 1967), and Murphy v. Land, 420 S.W.2d 505, 507 (Mo.1967), both of which declare that deviations from MAI create the presumption of prejudicial error unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from the deviation. | 1 | 1 |
Watterson Ex Rel. Watterson v. Portasgreen1 sentence1978Watterson v. Portas, 466 S.W.2d 129, 132 [5, 6] (Mo.App.1971); S.Ct.Rule 70.01(c). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christopher Michael King v. State of Missouri
green
1 sentence2022King v. State, 638 S.W.3d 113 , 119 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citing Rule 28.02); see also State v. Arnold, 397 S.W.3d 521, 528 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (citing Spry, 252 S.W.3d at 266 ) (noting that omission of an instructional definition required by MAI-CR is presumed to be prejudicial error). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bayne v. Jenkins
green
1 sentence1984Consideration of the error in light of the facts, as required by Bayne v. Jenkins, 593 S.W.2d at 530 , does not dispel the presumption of prejudicial error. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Thomas v. Jones
green
1 sentence1972Thomas v. Jones, supra. The second assignment of error is the admission of evidence of prior injuries or conditions unrelated to the injuries herein complained of for the purpose of impeaching the plaintiff. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Houston v. Northup
green
1 sentence1972Brown, supra; Houston, supra. We must accordingly rule that the giving of this instruction established a presumption of prejudicial error which may have tended to influence the amount of the verdict. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.