¶1concurs in affirming the judgment, for the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, as well as upon the broader grounds stated by him in State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 320, 22 S. W. Rep. 353.
137 Mo. 584
McCarty v. O'Bryan
Decided February 9, 1897
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1897-02-09
Certified from Kansas City Court of Appeals. (1) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that plaintiff could not recover because the law under which plaintiff sues was unconstitutional and void. State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; also, San Antonio & A. P. B’y Co. v. Wilson, Central Law Journal, Yol. 35, issue No. 13, 212. (2) The court should have awarded defendant a new trial, because it had refused said instruction.
Relies on State v. Loomis
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Abbirmed · Decided 1897-02-09
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1922
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →