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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Paula Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Paula Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City Anchor | green | “should demonstrate how principles of law and the facts of the case interact.” | 5 |
| 2 | Paula Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City | green | “under rule 84.04, it is not proper for the appellate court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justifications and circumstances.” | 4 |
| 3 | State v. Fisher | neutral | “the purpose of the briefing requirements regarding points relied on is to give notice to the party opponent of the precise matter which must be contended with and answered and to inform the court of the issues presented for resolution.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.