6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watkinsgreen1 sentence2002See Watkins, 73 S.W.3d at 883 . | 1 | 1 |
Buttrick v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence1994Buttrick v. Director of Revenue, 804 S.W.2d 19, 19 (Mo. banc 1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Settle v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Weatherwax
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 35 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rodgers v. Schroeder
green
2 sentences1983Rodgers v. Schroeder, 220 Mo.App. 575 , 287 S.W. 861 (1926), involved an action against the marshal of a third class city for damages related to an assault, beyond the city limits for a speeding violation. 1983Rodgers v. Schroeder, 220 Mo.App. 575 , 287 S.W. 861 (1926), involved an action against the marshal of a third class city for damages related to an assault, beyond the city limits for a speeding violation. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Cotton v. Pyle
green
2 sentences1971In Cotton v. Pyle, supra, counsel directly asked the investigating officer: “You issued a ticket to Mr. Pyle (the defendant), didn’t you?” (400 S.W.2d l. c. 75.) The question was asked concerning the very collision at issue in the case, not, as here, concerning a speeding violation occurring months later and having no bearing on the issue of fault in the case being tried. 1971The question itself was an accusatory statement of fact, not, as here, the interrogatory form: “Did you plead guilty?” Nonetheless, despite the improprieties of the question, the trial court in Cotton, supra, refused to declare a mistrial, which action was affirmed upon appeal, this Court ruling: “Much is left to the discretion of the trial court * * *, and the trial court is in a much better position to determine whether a verdict has been obtained through ‘sharp practice,’ * * *’ under the evidence and circumstances that the matter arose and was disposed of during the trial, and that it was | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.