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

The “Cole Limitation” – Missouri Aligns with the Seventh Circuit on State-Law Safety Rules and Contributory Negligence under FELA

The “Cole Limitation” – Missouri Aligns with the Seventh Circuit on State-Law Safety Rules and Contributory Negligence under FELA

Date: Jun 11, 2025
The “Cole Limitation” – Missouri Aligns with the Seventh Circuit on State-Law Safety Rules and Contributory Negligence under FELA 1. Introduction Christopher Cole, a brakeman for The Kansas City...
“Biological Sex” as the Sole Protected Characteristic in MHRA Public-Accommodation Claims – An Analysis of R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District (Mo. banc 2025)

“Biological Sex” as the Sole Protected Characteristic in MHRA Public-Accommodation Claims – An Analysis of R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District (Mo. banc 2025)

Date: Jun 11, 2025
“Biological Sex” as the Sole Protected Characteristic in MHRA Public-Accommodation Claims – A Commentary on R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc (10 June...
MHRA § 213.065 “Sex” in Public Accommodations Means Biological Sex, Not Gender Identity (and Bostock Does Not Control Bathrooms/Locker Rooms)

MHRA § 213.065 “Sex” in Public Accommodations Means Biological Sex, Not Gender Identity (and Bostock Does Not Control Bathrooms/Locker Rooms)

Date: Jun 11, 2025
MHRA § 213.065 “Sex” in Public Accommodations Means Biological Sex, Not Gender Identity (and Bostock Does Not Control Bathrooms/Locker Rooms) Case: R.M.A. vs. Blue Springs R-IV School District (Mo....
FELA Contributory Negligence Survives State Close-Clearance “Negligence Per Se” Unless the State Rule Implements Federal Safety Norms; Post-Judgment Interest Cannot Be Added After Final Judgment Absent a Timely Request

FELA Contributory Negligence Survives State Close-Clearance “Negligence Per Se” Unless the State Rule Implements Federal Safety Norms; Post-Judgment Interest Cannot Be Added After Final Judgment Absent a Timely Request

Date: Jun 11, 2025
FELA Contributory Negligence Survives State Close-Clearance “Negligence Per Se” Unless the State Rule Implements Federal Safety Norms; Post-Judgment Interest Cannot Be Added After Final Judgment...
Defining Qualifying Preexisting Disabilities and Eliminating Load Factors in PTD Claims Under RSMo § 287.220.3

Defining Qualifying Preexisting Disabilities and Eliminating Load Factors in PTD Claims Under RSMo § 287.220.3

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Defining Qualifying Preexisting Disabilities and Eliminating Load Factors in PTD Claims Under RSMo § 287.220.3 Introduction This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Missouri’s en banc decision...
Second Injury Fund PTD: Preexisting Occupational Diseases Are Not “Compensable Injuries” Under § 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii)

Second Injury Fund PTD: Preexisting Occupational Diseases Are Not “Compensable Injuries” Under § 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii)

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Second Injury Fund PTD: Preexisting Occupational Diseases Are Not “Compensable Injuries” Under § 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii) Introduction Treasurer v. Penney (Mo. banc Apr. 29, 2025) addresses a recurring...
Sentencing Errors Are Not Jurisdictional: Missouri Habeas Cannot Revive Procedurally Defaulted “Excess Sentence” Claims (Overruling Zinna/Osowski/Merriweather)

Sentencing Errors Are Not Jurisdictional: Missouri Habeas Cannot Revive Procedurally Defaulted “Excess Sentence” Claims (Overruling Zinna/Osowski/Merriweather)

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Sentencing Errors Are Not Jurisdictional: Missouri Habeas Cannot Revive Procedurally Defaulted “Excess Sentence” Claims (Overruling Zinna/Osowski/Merriweather) 1. Introduction In Branson v. Shewmaker...
Strict Construction Excludes Occupational Diseases from Preexisting Disabilities under Section 287.220.3(2)(a)(ii)

Strict Construction Excludes Occupational Diseases from Preexisting Disabilities under Section 287.220.3(2)(a)(ii)

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Strict Construction Excludes Occupational Diseases from Preexisting Disabilities under Section 287.220.3(2)(a)(ii) Introduction In Treasurer of the State of Missouri – Custodian of the Second Injury...
Eckardt v. Treasurer (Mo. banc 2025): No Load-Factor/Enhanced-PPD “Boost” to Meet § 287.220.3’s 50-Week Threshold; PTD Causation Must Exclude Non-Qualifying Disabilities

Eckardt v. Treasurer (Mo. banc 2025): No Load-Factor/Enhanced-PPD “Boost” to Meet § 287.220.3’s 50-Week Threshold; PTD Causation Must Exclude Non-Qualifying Disabilities

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Eckardt v. Treasurer (Mo. banc 2025): No Load-Factor/Enhanced-PPD “Boost” to Meet § 287.220.3’s 50-Week Threshold; PTD Causation Must Exclude Non-Qualifying Disabilities Supreme Court of Missouri (en...
Reaffirming Original Jurisdiction and the “Cast Doubt” Standard in Post-Election Ballot Title Challenges

Reaffirming Original Jurisdiction and the “Cast Doubt” Standard in Post-Election Ballot Title Challenges

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Reaffirming Original Jurisdiction and the “Cast Doubt” Standard in Post-Election Ballot Title Challenges Introduction Raymond McCarty and three fellow registered Missouri voters (“Contestants”) filed...
Excess Sentence Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect: Exclusivity of Rule 24.035 in Post-Conviction Relief

Excess Sentence Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect: Exclusivity of Rule 24.035 in Post-Conviction Relief

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Excess Sentence Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect: Exclusivity of Rule 24.035 in Post-Conviction Relief Introduction In In re Robert J. Branson v. Michael Shewmaker, Warden (Missouri Supreme Court,...
McCarty v. Secretary of State (Mo. banc Apr. 29, 2025) — Post‑Election Ballot‑Title Contests: “Irregularity” Requires Chapter 116 Defect Plus Section 115.593 Election‑Doubt; Single‑Subject/Clear‑Title Claims Beyond the Court’s Original Jurisdiction

McCarty v. Secretary of State (Mo. banc Apr. 29, 2025) — Post‑Election Ballot‑Title Contests: “Irregularity” Requires Chapter 116 Defect Plus Section 115.593 Election‑Doubt; Single‑Subject/Clear‑Title Claims Beyond the Court’s Original Jurisdiction

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Post‑Election Ballot‑Title Contests: A Chapter 116 Defect Must Also “Cast Doubt” Under Section 115.593; Single‑Subject/Clear‑Title Attacks Lie Outside the Missouri Supreme Court’s Original...
Rule 74.06(b)(5) Relief Requires Equitable Change Beyond Doctrinal Shifts—and an Unvacated Declaration of Unconstitutionality Blocks Enforcement

Rule 74.06(b)(5) Relief Requires Equitable Change Beyond Doctrinal Shifts—and an Unvacated Declaration of Unconstitutionality Blocks Enforcement

Date: Apr 16, 2025
Rule 74.06(b)(5) Relief Requires Equitable Change Beyond Doctrinal Shifts—and an Unvacated Declaration of Unconstitutionality Blocks Enforcement 1. Introduction City of Normandy v. Kehoe (Supreme...
Equitable Limits of Rule 74.06(b)(5): Change in Law Not Sole Basis for Relief

Equitable Limits of Rule 74.06(b)(5): Change in Law Not Sole Basis for Relief

Date: Apr 16, 2025
Equitable Limits of Rule 74.06(b)(5): Change in Law Not Sole Basis for Relief Introduction In City of Normandy v. Mike Kehoe (Mo. banc, Apr. 15, 2025), the Supreme Court of Missouri clarified the...
State v. Thompson: Dilatory Failure to Obtain Counsel Forfeits Right-to-Counsel Claim at Preliminary Hearing; Trial Courts May Cure Inconsistent Verdicts Before Jury Discharge

State v. Thompson: Dilatory Failure to Obtain Counsel Forfeits Right-to-Counsel Claim at Preliminary Hearing; Trial Courts May Cure Inconsistent Verdicts Before Jury Discharge

Date: Apr 16, 2025
State v. Thompson: Dilatory Failure to Obtain Counsel Forfeits Right-to-Counsel Claim at Preliminary Hearing; Trial Courts May Cure Inconsistent Verdicts Before Jury Discharge Introduction In State...
The State’s Statutory Right to Appeal Civil Collateral Attacks Under Section 547.031 Affirmed

The State’s Statutory Right to Appeal Civil Collateral Attacks Under Section 547.031 Affirmed

Date: Apr 16, 2025
The State’s Statutory Right to Appeal Civil Collateral Attacks Under Section 547.031 Affirmed Introduction This case arises from a novel post-conviction procedure codified at Missouri Revised...
Implied Waiver of Sixth Amendment Counsel Through Unreasonable Delay and Court’s Authority to Rectify Inconsistent Jury Verdicts

Implied Waiver of Sixth Amendment Counsel Through Unreasonable Delay and Court’s Authority to Rectify Inconsistent Jury Verdicts

Date: Apr 16, 2025
Implied Waiver of Sixth Amendment Counsel Through Unreasonable Delay and Court’s Authority to Rectify Inconsistent Jury Verdicts Introduction In State of Missouri v. David Thompson, the Supreme Court...
Missouri Recognizes the State’s Right to Appeal § 547.031 Vacatur Judgments Under § 512.020(5)

Missouri Recognizes the State’s Right to Appeal § 547.031 Vacatur Judgments Under § 512.020(5)

Date: Apr 16, 2025
Missouri Recognizes the State’s Right to Appeal § 547.031 Vacatur Judgments Under § 512.020(5) Case: In re: Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Dunn (No. SC100878) Court: Supreme Court of...
State v. Tate: Sufficiency Review Includes All Admitted Evidence, Even If Unpublished to the Jury

State v. Tate: Sufficiency Review Includes All Admitted Evidence, Even If Unpublished to the Jury

Date: Apr 2, 2025
State v. Tate: Sufficiency Review Includes All Admitted Evidence, Even If Unpublished to the Jury Introduction In State v. Tate (Mo. banc Apr. 1, 2025), the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed...
Masters v. Dawson: Missouri Requires Explicit Preservation of the Jury-Trial Right in Post-Trial Motions; Piecemeal Incorporation Is Insufficient

Masters v. Dawson: Missouri Requires Explicit Preservation of the Jury-Trial Right in Post-Trial Motions; Piecemeal Incorporation Is Insufficient

Date: Apr 2, 2025
Masters v. Dawson: Missouri Requires Explicit Preservation of the Jury-Trial Right in Post-Trial Motions; Piecemeal Incorporation Is Insufficient 1. Introduction Masters v. Dawson (Supreme Court of...
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