Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Missouri Case Commentaries

Docket-Entry Suppression Orders Trigger the State’s Five-Day Interlocutory Appeal Deadline (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 547.200.4)

Docket-Entry Suppression Orders Trigger the State’s Five-Day Interlocutory Appeal Deadline (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 547.200.4)

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Docket-Entry Suppression Orders Trigger the State’s Five-Day Interlocutory Appeal Deadline (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 547.200.4) Case: State of Missouri v. Mire (Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc) Date:...
General Partnership “Aggregate Theory” + AAA Delegation Clause: Partners’ Individual Signatures Can Compel Arbitration and Send Scope to the Arbitrator

General Partnership “Aggregate Theory” + AAA Delegation Clause: Partners’ Individual Signatures Can Compel Arbitration and Send Scope to the Arbitrator

Date: Nov 5, 2025
General Partnership “Aggregate Theory” + AAA Delegation Clause: Partners’ Individual Signatures Can Compel Arbitration and Send Scope to the Arbitrator 1. Introduction Parties and business...
Missouri Supreme Court Mandates the Houston Four-Step Framework for Against-the-Weight-of-the-Evidence Appeals

Missouri Supreme Court Mandates the Houston Four-Step Framework for Against-the-Weight-of-the-Evidence Appeals

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Missouri Supreme Court Mandates the Houston Four-Step Framework for Against-the-Weight-of-the-Evidence Appeals 1. Introduction Weeks v. City of St. Louis (Supreme Court of Missouri, Nov. 4, 2025)...
No Shortcut to the Supreme Court: Missouri’s Clarified Rule on Appellate
            Jurisdiction over Preliminary Injunctions

No Shortcut to the Supreme Court: Missouri’s Clarified Rule on Appellate Jurisdiction over Preliminary Injunctions

Date: Aug 14, 2025
No Shortcut to the Supreme Court: Missouri’s Clarified Rule on Appellate Jurisdiction over Preliminary Injunctions 1. Introduction In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State...
“The Rhodes Rule”: Missouri Supreme Court Re-Affirms that an Order Is Not Appealable Unless Every Requested Remedy—Legal and Equitable—Is Expressly Resolved

“The Rhodes Rule”: Missouri Supreme Court Re-Affirms that an Order Is Not Appealable Unless Every Requested Remedy—Legal and Equitable—Is Expressly Resolved

Date: Aug 14, 2025
“The Rhodes Rule”: Missouri Supreme Court Re-Affirms that an Order Is Not Appealable Unless Every Requested Remedy—Legal and Equitable—Is Expressly Resolved 1. Introduction Kevin Rhodes, a former...
From “Merely Incidental” to “Substantial”: Missouri Supreme Court Redefines the Kidnapping Element in State v. Dustin Curtis Winter

From “Merely Incidental” to “Substantial”: Missouri Supreme Court Redefines the Kidnapping Element in State v. Dustin Curtis Winter

Date: Aug 14, 2025
From “Merely Incidental” to “Substantial”: Missouri Supreme Court Redefines the Kidnapping Element in State v. Dustin Curtis Winter Introduction In State of Missouri v. Dustin Curtis Winter, No....
Interlocutory Appeals from Preliminary Injunctions Do Not Trigger Missouri Supreme Court Exclusive Jurisdiction Absent a Preserved Statute-Validity Ruling

Interlocutory Appeals from Preliminary Injunctions Do Not Trigger Missouri Supreme Court Exclusive Jurisdiction Absent a Preserved Statute-Validity Ruling

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Interlocutory Appeals from Preliminary Injunctions Do Not Trigger Missouri Supreme Court Exclusive Jurisdiction Absent a Preserved Statute-Validity Ruling 1. Introduction In Comprehensive Health of...
Final-Judgment Rule: An MHRA Judgment Is Not Appealable Unless It Disposes of Requested Equitable Relief and Prejudgment Interest

Final-Judgment Rule: An MHRA Judgment Is Not Appealable Unless It Disposes of Requested Equitable Relief and Prejudgment Interest

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Final-Judgment Rule: An MHRA Judgment Is Not Appealable Unless It Disposes of Requested Equitable Relief and Prejudgment Interest 1. Introduction Rhodes v. Missouri Highways and Transportation...
Distinguishing Weapons Offenses from “Marijuana Offenses” Under Missouri Amendment 3 – A Commentary on C.S. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol CJIS (Mo. banc 2025)

Distinguishing Weapons Offenses from “Marijuana Offenses” Under Missouri Amendment 3 – A Commentary on C.S. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol CJIS (Mo. banc 2025)

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Distinguishing Weapons Offenses from “Marijuana Offenses” Under Missouri Amendment 3 A Comprehensive Commentary on C.S. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Service, 645...
Mack v. Missouri – Curtailing the Abandonment Doctrine and Foreclosing Re-litigation of Direct-Appeal Issues in Rule 29.15 Proceedings

Mack v. Missouri – Curtailing the Abandonment Doctrine and Foreclosing Re-litigation of Direct-Appeal Issues in Rule 29.15 Proceedings

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Mack v. Missouri – Curtailing the Abandonment Doctrine and Foreclosing Re-litigation of Direct-Appeal Issues in Rule 29.15 Proceedings 1. Introduction In Cedric Dewayne Mack v. State of Missouri, the...
“The Sentencing-Date Rule” & the Limits of the Abandonment Doctrine: Commentary on Christopher A. Scott v. State of Missouri (Mo. banc 2025)

“The Sentencing-Date Rule” & the Limits of the Abandonment Doctrine: Commentary on Christopher A. Scott v. State of Missouri (Mo. banc 2025)

Date: Jul 23, 2025
“The Sentencing-Date Rule” & the Limits of the Abandonment Doctrine Commentary on Christopher A. Scott v. State of Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, July 22, 2025 1. Introduction In...
McCarty v. OCDC: Whistle-Blowing Does Not Trump Attorney-Client Confidentiality for Former Government Lawyers

McCarty v. OCDC: Whistle-Blowing Does Not Trump Attorney-Client Confidentiality for Former Government Lawyers

Date: Jul 23, 2025
McCarty v. OCDC: Whistle-Blowing Does Not Trump Attorney-Client Confidentiality for Former Government Lawyers 1. Introduction In In re: Ryan Christopher McCarty, the Supreme Court of Missouri,...
“Record-Based Abandonment”:  The Missouri Supreme Court Dispenses with Remand when Counsel’s Untimeliness is Apparent on the Face of the Record

“Record-Based Abandonment”: The Missouri Supreme Court Dispenses with Remand when Counsel’s Untimeliness is Apparent on the Face of the Record

Date: Jul 23, 2025
“Record-Based Abandonment”: The Missouri Supreme Court Dispenses with Remand when Counsel’s Untimeliness is Apparent on the Face of the Record Introduction Nelson v. State of Missouri and Woods v....
“One-Tax, One-Jurisdiction”: The Missouri Supreme Court Limits Counties’ Marijuana Sales-Tax Authority to Unincorporated Areas

“One-Tax, One-Jurisdiction”: The Missouri Supreme Court Limits Counties’ Marijuana Sales-Tax Authority to Unincorporated Areas

Date: Jul 23, 2025
“One-Tax, One-Jurisdiction”: The Missouri Supreme Court Limits Counties’ Marijuana Sales-Tax Authority to Unincorporated Areas 1. Introduction In Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC v. St. Louis...
Amendment 3 Expungement: “Marijuana Offense” Excludes Firearm-While-Possessing-Felony-Marijuana (Conduct that Endangers Others)

Amendment 3 Expungement: “Marijuana Offense” Excludes Firearm-While-Possessing-Felony-Marijuana (Conduct that Endangers Others)

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Amendment 3 Expungement: “Marijuana Offense” Excludes Firearm-While-Possessing-Felony-Marijuana (Conduct that Endangers Others) Case: C.S. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice...
Unappointed Counsel Cannot Trigger Rule 29.15 “Abandonment” to Excuse Untimely Amended Motions; No Remand When Sole Timely Pro Se Claim Was Already Decided on Direct Appeal

Unappointed Counsel Cannot Trigger Rule 29.15 “Abandonment” to Excuse Untimely Amended Motions; No Remand When Sole Timely Pro Se Claim Was Already Decided on Direct Appeal

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Unappointed Counsel Cannot Trigger Rule 29.15 “Abandonment” to Excuse Untimely Amended Motions; No Remand When Sole Timely Pro Se Claim Was Already Decided on Direct Appeal 1. Introduction Mack v....
Sentencing-Date Version of Rule 29.15 Governs; Abandonment Doctrine Limited to Appointed Postconviction Counsel

Sentencing-Date Version of Rule 29.15 Governs; Abandonment Doctrine Limited to Appointed Postconviction Counsel

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Sentencing-Date Version of Rule 29.15 Governs; Abandonment Doctrine Limited to Appointed Postconviction Counsel 1. Introduction In Scott v. State (Supreme Court of Missouri, July 22, 2025), the Court...
Unmistakable Postconviction Counsel Abandonment: No Remand Required When the Record Shows Untimely Amended Motions and the Merits Were Already Litigated

Unmistakable Postconviction Counsel Abandonment: No Remand Required When the Record Shows Untimely Amended Motions and the Merits Were Already Litigated

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Unmistakable Postconviction Counsel Abandonment: No Remand Required When the Record Shows Untimely Amended Motions and the Merits Were Already Litigated 1. Introduction Nelson v. State (Mo. banc July...
Exclusive Local 3% Adult-Use Marijuana Tax Authority Under Mo. Const. art. XIV, § 2: City in Incorporated Areas, County Only in Unincorporated Areas

Exclusive Local 3% Adult-Use Marijuana Tax Authority Under Mo. Const. art. XIV, § 2: City in Incorporated Areas, County Only in Unincorporated Areas

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Exclusive Local 3% Adult-Use Marijuana Tax Authority Under Mo. Const. art. XIV, § 2: City in Incorporated Areas, County Only in Unincorporated Areas Case: Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC v. St....
Attorney “Whistleblowing” Does Not Excuse Former-Client Confidentiality: Sunshine Law, Rule 4-1.13, and the First Amendment Are Not Safe Harbors

Attorney “Whistleblowing” Does Not Excuse Former-Client Confidentiality: Sunshine Law, Rule 4-1.13, and the First Amendment Are Not Safe Harbors

Date: Jul 23, 2025
Attorney “Whistleblowing” Does Not Excuse Former-Client Confidentiality: Sunshine Law, Rule 4-1.13, and the First Amendment Are Not Safe Harbors Case: In re: Ryan Christopher McCarty, Respondent....
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • FAQs
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Campus Connect Fellow Program
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert