Missouri Court of Appeals· 10/29/1991

State v. McCarter

Citations

820 S.W.2d 587
1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1634
1991 WL 216065

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

affirming denial of an oral motion for a continuance owing to the absence of a witness made on the morning of trial
affirming denial of an oral motion for a continuance owing to the absence of a witness made on the morning of trial
specifically noting that failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 24.09 was sufficient grounds to deny a motion for continuance, stating that this was “particularly true where the factual basis for the motion was not a last minute or unexpected surprise”
specifically noting that failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 24.09 was sufficient grounds to deny a motion for continuance, stating that this was \particularly true where the factual basis for the motion was not a last minute or unexpected surprise\
specifically noting that failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 24.09 was sufficient grounds to deny a motion for continuance, stating that this was “particularly true where the factual basis for the motion was not a last minute or unexpected surprise”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ahrens, Karohl, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.