Behrman v. Poston, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Behrman v. Poston, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2013–2015 · 2 courts · …common sense and collective experience suggest that a person cannot fail to stop at a red light without being in motion. at p. 98 ⚠ not in text
76 citation events (76 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: City of St. Peters, Missouri v. Bonnie A. Roeder (mo, 2015-08-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) City of St. Peters, Missouri v. Bonnie A. Roeder (8×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Mo. · 2015 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
common sense and collective experience suggest that a person cannot fail to stop at a red light without being in motion.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Edwards v. City of Ellisville (3×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a mistake as to the validity and enforceability of an ordinance is an issue of law
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John C. Duvall v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Res judicata, otherwise known as "claim preclusion," is a doctrine that "precludes the relitigation of the same cause of action that has been previously adjudicated by a final judgment on the merits, or from later raising a claim arising from the same set of facts 9 that should have been raised in the first suit." Edwards v. City of Ellisville, 426 S.W.3d 644, 655 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (quoting Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 90 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wiley v. Daly
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ctr., 727 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987) (applying doctrine to bar claim for money had and received) and Unverferth v. City of Florissant 419 S.W.3d 76, 106 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (applying doctrine to bar claim for unjust enrichment).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sarah Tupper, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. City of St. Louis, Appellants/Cross-Respondents. (2×)
Mo. · 2015 · confidence medium
V, sec. 10. 6 The circuit court relied on Brunner v. City of Arnold, 427 S.W.3d 201, 231-33 (Mo. App. 2013); Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 190-91 (Mo. App. 2013); and Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 109 (Mo. App. 2013) (Mooney, J., dissenting). 8 City’s Appeal On appeal, the city asserts the circuit court erred in declaring ordinance 66868 invalid and enjoining enforcement of the ordinance because Ms. Tupper and Ms. Thurmond have an adequate remedy at law.
examined Cited as authority (rule) City of Moline Acres v. Charles W. Brennan (4×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. · 2015 · confidence medium
The Notice states: “No points will be assessed against your driver’s license.” Brennan argued that this was sufficient to make the Ordinance invalid, citing Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 84 (Mo. App. 2013), which holds that a notice of violation stating (incorrectly) that no points will be assessed creates a conflict with state law even though the ordinance is silent on the issue.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greg Wiley, and Julia Mittelstadt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gregory F.X. Daly, Collector of Revenue for the City of Saint Louis, Defendants/Respondents.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ctr., 727 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987) (applying doctrine to bar claim for money had and received); Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 106 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (applying doctrine to bar claim for unjust enrichment).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids
N.D. Iowa · 2015 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc., 582 F.3d 617, 620-21 (6th Cir.2009) (holding that when a plaintiff must pay $67.50 to challenge a $50 fine “few rational persons would pay their parking ticket if challenging it was conditioned on paying a non-refundable fee over and above the cost of the ticket” and that a “fee over and above the price of the ticket itself gives [the plaintiff] standing enough to get in the courthouse door”); Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 88 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) (“We reject the notion that [the plaintiff] lacks standing to challenge t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephanie Kim Smith v. Kole Ryan McAdams
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
In her sole point, Appellant contends that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in denying her petition in that the circuit court misinterpreted sections 455.010(7) and 455.020 in determining that Respondent was not a “household member” for purposes of an order of protection. 5 “The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute.” Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 97 (Mo.App.E.D.2013).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of St. Peters, Missouri v. Bonnie A. Roeder (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
A conflict exists when the ordinance "permits what the statute prohibits or prohibits what the statute permits." Unverferth, 419 S.W.3d at 97 (internal quotation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of St. John v. Thomas Brockus
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Id.; Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 97 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).
discussed Cited "see" Jim Pepper v. St. Charles County, Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 108 (Mo. App. E.D. *602 2013)(Mooney, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)(observing that ordinance established an unjust rebuttable presumption that vehicle’s registered owner was its driver at time of alleged violation), overruled on other grounds by City of Moline Acres v. Brennan, 470 S.W.3d 367, 374 (Mo. banc 2015).
discussed Cited "see" Damon v. City of Kansas City (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Unverferth, 419 S.W.3d at 87 , 2013 WL 4813851, at *5 (distinguishing Mills v. City of Springfield, No. 2:10-CV-04036-NKL, 2010 WL 3526208 (W.D.Mo.
examined Cited "see" Ballard v. City of Creve Coeur (4×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76, 92-93 , 2013 WL 4813851, at *10 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (citing Home Shopping Club, Inc. v. Roberts Broad.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin BEHRMAN
v.
Donald Lee POSTON and Consumers Insurance
No. WD 75457.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Sep 10, 2013.
419 S.W.3d 76
2013 WL 4807082
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1036
Joseph M. Backer, Independence, MO, for appellant., Ann P. Hagan, Mexico, MO,, for respondents.
Mitchell, Newton, Witt.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Behrman appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Donald Lee Poston (“Poston”) and Consumers Insurance Company (“Consumers”). Behrman contends that summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether Poston made fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations to Behrman in negotiating an insurance claim. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum fully explaining our decision has been provided to the parties.