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.
6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Paynegreen1 sentence1998Whitby v. State, 930 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ervingreen2 sentences1998See State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993). 1998See State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Frey v. Fulcomergreen2 sentences1998See State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993). 1998See State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Laaman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998See State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993). 1998See State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Van Dorengreen1 sentence1989See State v. Van Doren, supra. Defendant’s first point has no merit. | 1 | 1 |
Kozeny-Wagner, Inc. v. Sharkgreen1 sentence1988Kozeny-Wagner, Inc. v. Shark, 709 S.W.2d 149, 151-152 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gittemeier v. State
green
2 sentences2021Beck's arguments were expressly rejected by our Supreme Court in Gittemeier v. State, 527 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. banc 2017), holding; 1) the time limits of rule 29.15 are mandatory and the motion court does not have the authority to extend them and 2) the abandonment doctrine is solely applicable to appointed counsel and cannot be applied to retained counsel. 2021Beck's arguments were expressly rejected by our Supreme Court in Gittemeier v. State, 527 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. banc 2017), holding; 1) the time limits of rule 29.15 are mandatory and the motion court does not have the authority to extend them and 2) the abandonment doctrine is solely applicable to appointed counsel and cannot be applied to retained counsel. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
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.