Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 722 SW2D 296 - State Ex Rel. Williams v. Mauer

State Ex Rel. Williams v. Mauer’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2017

24 state decisions

901986199020002010decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Strahler v. St. Luke's Hospital · State Ex Rel. Cardinal Glennon Memorial Hospital for Children v. Gaertner · Brennan v. Engineered Products, Inc. · State Ex Rel. Faith Hospital v. Enright · Abbott v. Seamon

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Douglas stands for the proposition that a trial court may impose requirements in addition to those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, provided the additional requirements imposed are not unreasonable under the circumstances, not unnecessarily burdensome or not inconsistent with the Rules. Contrary to relators’ argument, additional requirements are not definitionally inconsistent with the Rules.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Prohibition is appropriate to compel a trial judge to comply with the rules of this Court where there is no adequate remedy by appeal. State ex rel. Bullington v. Mason, 593 S.W.2d 224 (Mo. banc 1980). Prohibition is also appropriate where a trial judge seeks to permit discovery which is expressly forbidden by statute... Faith Hospital ..., 706 S.W.2d 852 ....” Williams, 722 S.W.2d at 297 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Misjoinder of parties is not grounds for dismissal. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.”
    1 later decision 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.