6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Umphries v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Umphries v. Jones, 804 S.W.2d 38, 41 ( Mo. App. 1991) (“Reasonable accommodation does not require the employer to reassign an employee or to restructure a job in a way that would usurp the legitimate rights of other employees.”); Jewe ll v. Blue Valley Unified *248 Sch. | 1 | 1 |
Farrow v. Saint Francis Medical Centergreen1 sentence2016See Farrow, 407 S.W.3d at 602-03 ; Zipper, 978 S.W.2d at 419 . | 1 | 1 |
G. Steven Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.green1 sentence2016Standard of Review A trial court “enjoys considerable discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and, absent clear abuse of discretion, its action will not be grounds for reversal.” Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 107, 114 (Mo. banc 2015). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zipper v. Health Midwest
green
1 sentence2016See Farrow, 407 S.W.3d at 602-03 ; Zipper, 978 S.W.2d at 419 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Reed, 114 S.W.3d at 876-77 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Madorie
green
2 sentences2006Indeed, just last term, in State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. banc 2005), a DWI ease, this Court reviewed nearly identical circumstances in which a driver “got stuck in the ditch” after “trying to turn around” and repeatedly referred to the incident as an “accident.” And further, for what it’s worth (and in blatant contravention of the representations in Reed’s brief!), the alcohol influence report filed by the arresting officer makes at least three independent references to an “accident” having occurred. 2006Indeed, just last term, in State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. banc 2005), a DWI case, this Court reviewed nearly identical circumstances in which a driver "got stuck in the ditch" after "trying to turn around" and repeatedly referred to the incident as an "accident." And further, for what it's worth (and in blatant contravention of the representations in Reed's brief!), the alcohol influence report filed by the arresting officer makes at least three independent references to an "accident" having occurred. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Roberts v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1997In Roberts v. Roberts, 920 S.W.2d 144 (Mo.App.1996)[5], this court reiterated Reed’s reasoning and remanded that case to the trial court when plaintiff failed to name the alleged father or his estate in her paternity petition. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Reed v. Director of Revenue, State
green
1 sentence1994At the conclusion of the testimony, Ms. Reed’s attorney requested that her driving privileges be reinstated “because there was no evidence at trial proving the breathalyzer was functioning properly and no evidence of the maintenance records that were to be filed with the Department of Health.” Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.