Jordan v. St. John's Mercy Med. Ctr., 419 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Jordan v. St. John's Mercy Med. Ctr., 419 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …ordinance that is criminal in nature cannot create a rebuttable presumption as this would infringe upon a fundamental canon and procedure of this country's and this state's criminal justice system: an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty at p. 191 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …substantial transportation developments over the past sixty-four years at p. 191 ⚠ not in text
43 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Marcus Sommers v. Kruse Mennillo, LLP (moctapp, 2024-09-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Marcus Sommers v. Kruse Mennillo, LLP
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“When the trial court does not state a basis for dismissal, we presume that it was based on the grounds alleged in the motion to dismiss[.]” Dean v. Noble, 477 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 176 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) St. Louis Association of Realtors v. City of Florissant, and Todd Hughes
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“The [Missouri] Supreme Court has determined that the initial review of the constitutionality of municipal ordinances is proper in the Court of Appeals, noting that ‘claims that municipal ordinances are constitutionally invalid are not within the exclusive 3 appellate jurisdiction of this Court.’” Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 174 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting Alumax Foils, Inc. v. City of St.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rob Sanders v. City of Columbia, Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 174 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rob Sanders v. City of Columbia, Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 174 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ANGELA KOELLER and JEFF HASKENHOFF v. MALIBU SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant-Respondent
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
The voluntary payment doctrine “provides that a person who voluntarily pays money with full knowledge of all the facts in the case, and in the absence of fraud and duress, cannot recover it back, even though the payment is made without sufficient consideration and under protest.” Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 192 (Mo. App. 2013).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Aurora, Missouri, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, d/b/a CenturyLink, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
Mo. · 2019 · confidence medium
City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 188 (Mo. App. 2013); see also City of Moline Acres v. Brennan, 470 S.W.3d 367, 380 (Mo. banc 2015) (“[T]he power to inflict the penalty imposed by the ordinance cannot be exercised until there has been a judicial determination of the fact that the ordinance has been violated. . . . [B]efore there can be such a ‘judicial determination,’ due process requires that the City must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal quotations omitted)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Gerke v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
To state a claim for unjust enrichment, the petition must set forth facts demonstrating: “ ‘(1) that the defendant was enriched by the receipt of a benefit; (2) that the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; (3) that it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the benefit.’ ” Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 192 (Mo.App.2013) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blair v. City of Hannibal
E.D. Mo. · 2016 · confidence medium
Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 193 (Mo.Ct.App.2013).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lester M. Dean, Jr. v. Richard W. Noble
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 176 (Mo.App.2013).
examined Cited as authority (rule) City of Moline Acres v. Charles W. Brennan (4×)
Mo. · 2015 · confidence medium
In support, Brennan cites Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 191 (Mo. App. 2013), which holds that a “rebuttable presumption that the owner was also the driver is a necessary element to a violation of this ordinance and therefore would be unconstitutional in the context of a violation that is criminal in nature.” See also Brunner v. City of Arnold, 427 S.W.3d 201, 231 (Mo. App. 2013) (“ordinance that is criminal in nature cannot create a rebuttable presumption as this would infringe upon a fundamental canon and procedure of this country’s and this state’s criminal justice …
examined Cited as authority (rule) City of St. Peters, Missouri v. Bonnie A. Roeder (4×)
Mo. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Brunner v. City of Arnold, 427 S.W.3d 201, 229 (Mo. App. 2013); Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 187 (Mo. App. 2013); Edwards v. City of Ellisville, 426 S.W.3d 644, 664-65 (Mo. App. 2013); Unverferth, 419 S.W.3d at 98 (“Common sense and collective experience suggest that a person cannot fail to stop at a red light without being in motion.”).
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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of St. Peters, Missouri v. Bonnie A. Roeder (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See also Brunner v. City of Arnold, 2013 WL 6627959 at *23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (stating '[s]ection 302.302.1(1) requires the Department of Revenue to assess two points against the driver's license of any person convicted of a moving violation") (emphasis added); Unverferth, 419 S.W.3d at 97 (finding that the "plain language of [section 302.302] requires any municipal ordinance violation occurring while the vehicle is in motion be assessed two points") (emphasis added); Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 186 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) 6 (stating that section 302.302.1(1) "requires the Dep…
cited Cited "see" Bennett v. St. Louis Cnty.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Damon v. City of Kansas City , 419 S.W.3d 162 , 174-75 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).
discussed Cited "see" City of Slater, Missouri Municipal League,Christine Cates, Barbara Shaffer and Jacob K. Albarelli v. State of Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator Missouri Sheriff's Retirement System
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162 , 192 (Mo.App.W.D.2013); Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76 , 85 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (overruled on other grounds by City of Moline Acres v. Brennan, *591 470 S.W.3d 367, 374 (Mo. banc 2015)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elizabeth JORDAN
v.
ST. JOHN'S MERCY MEDICAL CENTER
No. ED 99567.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Nov 19, 2013.
419 S.W.3d 162
Stephen A. McManus, St. Louis, MO, Douglas M. Greenwald, Kansas City, KS, for Appellant., Cynthia C. Hennessey, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Dowd, Mooney, Sullivan.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. John’s Mercy Medical Center (“Employer”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to set aside or to amend its judgment in favor of Elizabeth Jordan (“Claimant”). Employer argues the trial court erred in entering judgment against it for: (1) specific amounts of future medical benefits, including a specific amount for home attendant care, and (2) specific amounts of interest, including specific amounts for interest on temporary total disability, permanent total disability, and medical compensation benefits.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).