Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 SW3D 127 - State v. McDaniel

State v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Thummel v. King · Wilkerson v. Prelutsky · Pellitteri v. Barry-Wehmiller Co. · Atkins v. McPhetridge · State v. Johnson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Violations of Rule 84.04 are grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal." Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 , 518 (Mo. App.1999). "Whether an appeal will be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is discretionary." Bamber v. Dale Hunt Trucking, 107 S.W.3d 489, 490 (Mo.App.2003), quoting Hampton v. Davenport, 86 S.W.3d 494, 496 (Mo.App. 2002). "That discretion is generally not exercised unless the deficiency impedes disposition on the merits. `A brief impedes disposition on the merits where it is so deficient that it fails to give notice to [the court] and to the other parties as to the issue presented on appeal.'" Keeney v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Com'n, 70 S.W.3d 597 , 598 n. 1 (Mo.App. 2002), quoting Wilkerson v. Prelutsky, 943 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Mo.banc 1997).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.