6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walls v. Vancilgreen1 sentence2001Id. at 653 ; see also Frager v. Director of Revenue, 7 S.W.3d 555 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1997See also Estate of Ingram v. Rollins, 864 S.W.2d 400 , 403 (Mo. App. E.D.1993) (“This ten-day rule is absolute and may not be extended.”) and Oliva v. Spatz, 831 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Mo.App.W.D. 1992) (“This ten day period may not be extended”). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Ingram v. Rollinsgreen1 sentence1997See also Estate of Ingram v. Rollins, 864 S.W.2d 400 , 403 (Mo. App. E.D.1993) (“This ten-day rule is absolute and may not be extended.”) and Oliva v. Spatz, 831 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Mo.App.W.D. 1992) (“This ten day period may not be extended”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Boevinggreen1 sentence1984That argument ignores the plain language of the rule which provides that the ten-day rule does not apply unless the trial judge was not designated within five days after the “trial setting date.” While the rule allowing a party to disqualify a judge should be liberally construed in favor of the right to disqualify, In re Estate of Boeving, 388 S.W.2d 40, 50 (Mo.App.1965), the court must weigh the effect of liberalizing such a rule on the rights of the various parties and the type of proceeding involved. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hugheygreen1 sentence1970The trial court concluded: As a practical matter to require that the magistrate await the preparation of the transcript of the testimony before certifying the papers to the circuit court could well delay such certification beyond the ten-day requirement (of the rule and statute); the failure to file the transcript is not jurisdictional (that is correct, see State v. Banton, 342 Mo. 45 , 111 S.W.2d 516 , 518 et seq., quoting State v. Smith, Mo., 228 S.W. 1057 , 1060, that “ ‘the purpose of the statute is to secure to a defendant a fair preliminary examination and to preserve the evidence taken’ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2009In Brady , the Court held that "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 . 2009In Brady , the Court held that "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kersting v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 653 ; see also Frager v. Director of Revenue, 7 S.W.3d 555 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Avery v. Bi-State Development Agency
green
1 sentence1997For example, in Avery v. Bi-State Development Agency, 670 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App. 1984), an associate circuit judge had entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, but had failed to notify any of the parties of the judgment. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Essner v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence1983Also contradicting Weisman is the case of Essner v. Reynolds, 621 S.W.2d 551 (Mo. App.1981) where the ten day requirement was not met. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Banton.
green
2 sentences1970The trial court concluded: As a practical matter to require that the magistrate await the preparation of the transcript of the testimony before certifying the papers to the circuit court could well delay such certification beyond the ten-day requirement (of the rule and statute); the failure to file the transcript is not jurisdictional (that is correct, see State v. Banton, 342 Mo. 45 , 111 S.W.2d 516 , 518 et seq., quoting State v. Smith, Mo., 228 S.W. 1057 , 1060, that “ ‘the purpose of the statute is to secure to a defendant a fair preliminary examination and to preserve the evidence taken’ 1970The trial court concluded: As a practical matter to require that the magistrate await the preparation of the transcript of the testimony before certifying the papers to the circuit court could well delay such certification beyond the ten-day requirement (of the rule and statute); the failure to file the transcript is not jurisdictional (that is correct, see State v. Banton, 342 Mo. 45 , 111 S.W.2d 516 , 518 et seq., quoting State v. Smith, Mo., 228 S.W. 1057 , 1060, that “ ‘the purpose of the statute is to secure to a defendant a fair preliminary examination and to preserve the evidence taken’ | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.