43 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1883–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. Doerflingergreen2 sentences2014The doctrine takes on the character of the rule against splitting a cause of action and it is aptly stated in Burke v. Doerflinger, 663 S.W.2d 405, 407 (Mo.App. 1991The doctrine takes on the character of the rule against splitting a cause of action and it is aptly stated in Burke v. Doerflinger, 663 S.W.2d 405, 407 (Mo.App.1983): Res judicata and splitting a cause of action are closely related because both are designed to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Wellsgreen2 sentences1987See also, State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Mo.App.1979), where the appellate court reversed for failure to give the character instruction in a robbery case where three of four witnesses said the defendant was honest and trustworthy; State v. Ant-wine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974), where the evidence of the defendant being a honest and upright required the instruction in a charge of unlawful sale of beer. 1981MAI-CR 2.50, Notes on Use, n. 1; State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Mo. App.1979); State v. Woodfin, 559 S.W.2d 273, 277 (Mo.App.1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Woodfingreen2 sentences1987In State v. Woodfin, 559 S.W.2d 273, 277-78 (Mo.App.1978), a witness’ testimony as to the accused’s reputation with “friends” in the “community” did not require an instruction on good character, but even if the testimony was sufficient, no prejudicial error resulted. 1981MAI-CR 2.50, Notes on Use, n. 1; State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Mo. App.1979); State v. Woodfin, 559 S.W.2d 273, 277 (Mo.App.1977). | 2 | 2 |
Lay v. Laygreen2 sentences2003“The doctrine of res judicata takes on the character of the rule against splitting a cause of action.” Lay, 912 S.W.2d at 471 . 2003Both doctrines “ ‘are closely related because both are designed to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits.’ ” Id. at 472 (quoting Burke v. Doerflinger, 663 S.W.2d 405, 407 (Mo.App.1983)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Antwinegreen2 sentences1987See also, State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Mo.App.1979), where the appellate court reversed for failure to give the character instruction in a robbery case where three of four witnesses said the defendant was honest and trustworthy; State v. Ant-wine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974), where the evidence of the defendant being a honest and upright required the instruction in a charge of unlawful sale of beer. 1985See also State v. Antwine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974) (Character instruction must be given in murder case where evidence of defendant’s reputation as peaceful, law-abiding citizen); State v. Jackson, 373 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.1963) (Evidence of defendant’s reputation as peaceful, law-abiding, non-violent person required character instruction in assault case). | 1 | 3 |
Twin River Construction Co. v. Public Water District No. 6green2 sentences1989Id. 1985Twin River Const. Co. v. Public Water Dist., 653 S.W.2d 682, 695 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bairdgreen2 sentences1984State v. Antwine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974); State v. Jackson, 373 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.1963); State v. Brown, 62 S.W.2d 426 (Mo.1933); State v. Lindsey, 7 S.W.2d 253 (Mo.1928); State v. Baird, 288 Mo. 62 , 231 S.W. 625 (1921); State v. Swain, 68 Mo. 605 (1878). 1984State v. Antwine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974); State v. Jackson, 373 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.1963); State v. Brown, 62 S.W.2d 426 (Mo.1933); State v. Lindsey, 7 S.W.2d 253 (Mo.1928); State v. Baird, 288 Mo. 62 , 231 S.W. 625 (1921); State v. Swain, 68 Mo. 605 (1878). | 1 | 2 |
Bailey v. Hawthorn Bankgreen1 sentence2021See Bailey, 382 S.W.3d at 106 ; Ohlendorf, 670 S.W.2d at 935 ; see also Huffstutter, 778 S.W.2d at 395 (“The court must consider the character of the claim, not the defense to it, when determining whether the claim is liquidated.”). | 1 | 1 |
Huffstutter v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence2021See Bailey, 382 S.W.3d at 106 ; Ohlendorf, 670 S.W.2d at 935 ; see also Huffstutter, 778 S.W.2d at 395 (“The court must consider the character of the claim, not the defense to it, when determining whether the claim is liquidated.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vergegreen1 sentence2008See State v. Verge, 736 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Mo.App.1987) (involving the sufficiency of the evidence to support the giving of MAI-CR 2d 2.50, the predecessor instruction to MAI-CR 3d 310.40). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2005In State v. Anderson, 785 S.W.2d 299, 305-06 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Pogue v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Pogue v. State, 750 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Burger v. Woodgreen1 sentence1988Burger v. Wood, 446 S.W.2d 436, 444 (Mo.App.1969). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1987More relevant to the factual setting here are cases such as State v. Taylor, 726 S.W.2d 335, 338 (Mo. banc 1987), where the Supreme Court of Missouri said testimony on the defendant’s general reputation for truth and veracity did not meet the language of MAI-CR 2d 2.50 “as to those traits of character which ordinarily would be involved in the commission of an offense as charged in this case.” (Emphasis in original.) The court said evidence of reputation for truth and veracity was not of any character trait involved in any element of the offenses of sodomy and attempted rape by Taylor of a twel | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manninggreen1 sentence1987Martin was quoted as authority in State v. Manning, 682 S.W.2d 127, 131 (Mo.App.1984), where the opinion of the court states Missouri courts do not require a character instruction in assault or murder cases, “unless there was evidence of defendant’s reputation for the specific traits of character as a peaceable, quiet or law-abiding citizen.” This opinion, citing Stats v. Hayes, 295 S.W. 791 , 793 (Mo.1927), states, “Evidence of defendant’s reputation for honesty does not require an instruction on character in a prosecution for assault or murder....” The defendant’s reputation for truthfulness | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harlowgreen2 sentences1984State v. Harlow, 327 Mo. 231 , 37 S.W.2d 419, 421 (1931); State v. Underwood, 530 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Mo.App.1975). 1984State v. Harlow, 327 Mo. 231 , 37 S.W.2d 419, 421 (1931); State v. Underwood, 530 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Underwoodgreen1 sentence1984State v. Harlow, 327 Mo. 231 , 37 S.W.2d 419, 421 (1931); State v. Underwood, 530 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Foley Co. v. Walnut Associatesgreen1 sentence1983Interest and Usury § 21 at p. 62 (footnotes omitted); Foley Co. v. Walnut Associates, 597 S.W.2d 685, 691 (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
George v. Dickinsongreen1 sentence1978George v. Dickinson, 504 S.W.2d 658, 662-663 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Cochran v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1975Still another basis for the sovereign tort immunity doctrine was advanced in Cochran v. Wilson, 287 Mo. 210 , 229 S.W. 1050, 1054 (1921), as follows: “Another equally cogent reason why the board of education cannot be required to respond to an action of the character of that at bar is the nature of the fund intrusted to its care and distribution. 1975Still another basis for the sovereign tort immunity doctrine was advanced in Cochran v. Wilson, 287 Mo. 210 , 229 S.W. 1050, 1054 (1921), as follows: “Another equally cogent reason why the board of education cannot be required to respond to an action of the character of that at bar is the nature of the fund intrusted to its care and distribution. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shinn v. United Railways Co.green | 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. Jackson
green
2 sentences1985See also State v. Antwine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974) (Character instruction must be given in murder case where evidence of defendant’s reputation as peaceful, law-abiding citizen); State v. Jackson, 373 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.1963) (Evidence of defendant’s reputation as peaceful, law-abiding, non-violent person required character instruction in assault case). 1985See State v. Antwine, supra; State v. Jackson, supra. Without the instruction the jurors may not know how they should consider the character evidence. | 2 | 1984–1985 |
Garvin's Adm'r v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences1933A devise by a ward'to or for the benefit of his guardian, in any proceeding to establish or contest the same, is presumed in law to have been procured by the undue influence of the guardian, and the burden of repelling this presumption and thereby establishing or maintaining the devise rests upon those seeking to derive advantage from it. [Garvin’s Admr. v. Williams, 44 Mo. 465 ; Garvin’s Admr. v. Williams, 50 Mo. 206 .] *144 If the fiduciary relation of guardian and ward existed at the time of the execution of the gift or devise, and the parties were so situated with reference to each other t 1913A devise by a ward to or for the benefit of his guardian, in any proceeding to establish or contest the same, is presumed in law to have been procured by the undue influence of the guardian, and the burden of repelling this presumption and thereby establishing or maintaining the devise rests upon those seeking to derive advantage from it. “[Garvin’s Adm’r v. Williams, 44 Mo. 465 ; Garvin’s Adm’r v. Williams, 50 Mo. 206 .] If the fiduciary relation of guardian and ward existed at the time of the execution of the gift or devise, and the parties were so situated with reference to each other that | 2 | 1913–1933 |
Garvin's Administrator v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences1933A devise by a ward'to or for the benefit of his guardian, in any proceeding to establish or contest the same, is presumed in law to have been procured by the undue influence of the guardian, and the burden of repelling this presumption and thereby establishing or maintaining the devise rests upon those seeking to derive advantage from it. [Garvin’s Admr. v. Williams, 44 Mo. 465 ; Garvin’s Admr. v. Williams, 50 Mo. 206 .] *144 If the fiduciary relation of guardian and ward existed at the time of the execution of the gift or devise, and the parties were so situated with reference to each other t 1913A devise by a ward to or for the benefit of his guardian, in any proceeding to establish or contest the same, is presumed in law to have been procured by the undue influence of the guardian, and the burden of repelling this presumption and thereby establishing or maintaining the devise rests upon those seeking to derive advantage from it. “[Garvin’s Adm’r v. Williams, 44 Mo. 465 ; Garvin’s Adm’r v. Williams, 50 Mo. 206 .] If the fiduciary relation of guardian and ward existed at the time of the execution of the gift or devise, and the parties were so situated with reference to each other that | 2 | 1913–1933 |
Ohlendorf v. Feinstein
green
1 sentence2021See Bailey, 382 S.W.3d at 106 ; Ohlendorf, 670 S.W.2d at 935 ; see also Huffstutter, 778 S.W.2d at 395 (“The court must consider the character of the claim, not the defense to it, when determining whether the claim is liquidated.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1997In Harris , the court examined joinder in federal courts and other jurisdictions to define the language "same or similar character." 705 S.W.2d at 549 . 1997In Harris , the court examined joinder in federal courts and other jurisdictions to define the language “same or similar character.” 705 S.W.2d at 549 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Culkin
green
1 sentence1995In Culkin , the defendant presented the testimony of two witnesses that he had a good reputation for “truthfulness and honesty.” The court noted the requirement that the character instruction be given when the character trait in evidence tends to make it less likely that the defendant committed the offense and also acknowledged the defendant’s argument that “honesty” connotes a person “who is upright and marked by strong moral rectitude.” Id. at 812 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
King General Contractors, Inc. v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1990Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . 1990Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Swain
green
1 sentence1984State v. Antwine, 506 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.1974); State v. Jackson, 373 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.1963); State v. Brown, 62 S.W.2d 426 (Mo.1933); State v. Lindsey, 7 S.W.2d 253 (Mo.1928); State v. Baird, 288 Mo. 62 , 231 S.W. 625 (1921); State v. Swain, 68 Mo. 605 (1878). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Beck v. Lawler
green
1 sentence1969If this were not true, prejudgment interest would never be allowable when the precise principal amount of the recovery is placed in doubt by the filing of a counterclaim, set-off or plea of recoupment [Beck v. Lawler, Tex.Civ.App., 422 S.W.2d 816, 820 ]' — a result particularly out of character where defendants rely upon a plea of recoupment, which is equitable in nature [80 C.J.S. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Roberts v. Quisenberry green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Patton green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Madison County Bank v. Suman's Administrator neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Kochtitzky v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railroad neutral | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Buschling v. Ackley green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Harrison MacHine Works v. Aufderheide green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| White v. Maxcy green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| State v. Hickam neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Sharkey v. McDermott neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Healey v. Simpson neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Nowack v. Berger green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Lynn v. Hookaday green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Conner v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Sheperd v. St. Louis Transit Co. neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Zander v. St. Louis Transit Co. neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Stetzler v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Benjamin v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Martin v. Martin green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Fisher v. Davidson neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| State v. Finkelstein green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Commerce Trust Co. v. Keck neutral | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| State v. Gatlin green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| State v. Roberts green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| Bridwell v. Swank green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Michigan Yacht & Power Co. v. Busch green | 1 | 1912–1912 |
| State v. Herrell green | 1 | 1908–1908 |
| State v. Partlow green | 1 | 1908–1908 |
| State v. Rapp neutral | 1 | 1908–1908 |
| Cahill v. . Hilton neutral | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.