44 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2023 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. Rodgersgreen2 sentences1985State v. Rodgers, supra at 85; Rule 28.02(e). 1983State v. Rodgers, 641 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Mo.1982); State v. Ogle, 627 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Mo.App.1981). 1 The prejudicial effect of this error, however, is judicially determined. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Blocktongreen2 sentences1991We said in State v. Blockton, 526 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Mo.App.1975), that a declaration of a mistrial is a drastic remedy, utilized only when the prejudicial effect of the error can be removed in no other way. 1980“The declaration of a mistrial is a drastic remedy, utilized only when the prejudicial effect of the error can be removed in no other way.” State v. Blockton, 526 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Mo.App.1975). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences1988State v. Davis, 653 S.W.2d 167, 176 (Mo. banc 1983). 1986State v. Davis, 653 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. banc 1983). | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Companygreen2 sentences1983Louis Public Service Co., 421 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Mo. banc 1967). 1983Louis Public Service Co., 421 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Mo. banc 1967). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Oglegreen2 sentences1983State v. Rodgers, 641 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Mo.1982); State v. Ogle, 627 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Mo.App.1981). 1 The prejudicial effect of this error, however, is judicially determined. 1983Rule 28.02(e); State v. Rodgers, 641 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Ogle, 627 S.W.2d 73 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Coopergreen1 sentence2008State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Mo. banc 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Hawley v. Merrittgreen2 sentences2008Id. at 609 (internal citations omitted). 2008Id. at 609 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caldwellgreen1 sentence2008Rule 28.02(f); State v. Caldwell, 956 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Mo. banc 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Micklegreen1 sentence2006State v. Mickle, 164 S.W.3d 33, 61 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pottergreen1 sentence1990State v. Potter, 747 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Mo.App.1988); Rule 28.- 02(f). | 1 | 1 |
Forinash v. Daughertygreen1 sentence1988Forinash v. Daugherty, 697 S.W.2d 294, 307 (Mo.App.1985); Rule 70.02(c). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence1987State v. Mitchell, 651 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Mo.App., E.D.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1986State v. Smith, 679 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Mo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Carrgreen1 sentence1984Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68, 71-72 (Mo. banc 1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clevelandgreen1 sentence1982State v. Cleveland, 583 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Salsberry v. Archibald Plbg. & Heat. Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dennisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Phelpsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ernst v. Emerickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jesseegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tate v. Giuntagreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCandless v. Manzellagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boyington
green
2 sentences1977Rule 20.02(e), V.A.M.R. (1975); State v. Boyington, 544 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1976). 1977Rule 20.02(e) V.A.M.R.; e. g., State v. Boyington, 544 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1976). | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2023Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
John Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Id. (citing Rule 70.02(b)–(c)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Graham v. Goodman
green
1 sentence2017“However, the prejudicial effect of such error is to be judicially determined.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Goucher
green
1 sentence2010In fact, the only case cited by Defendant related to this assertion, State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915 (Mo.App.2003), expressly states, “Although an instruction may be mandatory, this opinion should not be read as holding that all instructional error is per se reversible. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Tripp
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Ward
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Danback
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Griffin
green
1 sentence1995Griffin, 859 S.W.2d at 820 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
DIERKER ASSOCIATES, DC, PC v. Gillis
green
1 sentence1994While objection at the time the instruction is proposed is not necessary to preserve error at the time this case was tried, id.; Rule 70.03, 5 the failure to object at trial may be considered in assessing the prejudicial effect of the instruction, for “[a] jury is not likely to be misled by an alleged defect in an instruction when the defect was not readily apparent to trial counsel.” Dierker, 859 S.W.2d at 744 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Dickerson
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Phelps
green
1 sentence1990Phelps, 677 S.W.2d at 421 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1985The opinion confirmed, nevertheless, that even the lapse of the MAI-CR 1.02 instruction — mandated by rule but omitted from the trial altogether— was governed by the prescription of Rule 20.02(e) [now Rule 28.02(e)] that the prejudicial effect of the error remained a matter for judicial determination [ Thomas, supra, l.c. 394[1] ]: “Prejudice cannot exist in the vacuum of a mere alleged failure to give this instruction. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Morris v. Duker
green
1 sentence1985In Morris v. Duker, 414 S.W.2d 77 (Mo.1967), the Supreme Court, directly addressed the question of the prejudicial effect of improperly restricting inquiry of prospective jurors regarding their possible relationship with an interested insurer. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Ellinger
green
2 sentences1984The Ellinger court held that “[o]n the issue now presented as to whether manifest injustice has appeared, the touchstone of that inquiry is a consideration of all the evidence in the case and any other facts which may indicate the prejudicial effect of the error.” Id. at 140 . 1984The Ellinger court held that "[o]n the issue now presented as to whether manifest injustice has appeared, the touchstone of that inquiry is a consideration of all the evidence in the case and any other facts which may indicate the prejudicial effect of the error." Id. at 140 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Lindsey v. Pettus neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Vernor green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| De Maire v. Thompson green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Buffington v. Fairground Sales Co. green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Gormly v. Johnson green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Epps v. Ragsdale green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| In Re Adoption of Zartman v. Alford green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Beer v. Martel green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Castorina v. Herrmann green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Arnold v. Alton Railroad Co. green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.