Burrell Ex Rel. Schatz v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. (2005)
green
· 17 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Schatz v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642, 652 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (citation omitted); see also State ex rel.
citation omitted
green
Joseph Simmons III v. Keat Properties, LLC (2025)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Auto., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642, 656 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005)). 9 At oral argument, Plaintiffs argued one prior incident is sufficient to put a possessor on notice for negligent acts of a third party, as opposed to the rule for criminal acts of a third party.
green
BRANTLEY ATCHLEY and BECKY TITTLE, as survivors of Kayla Atchley v. MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMM… (2024)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Auto., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642, 656 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (citing Stitt v. Raytown Sports Ass'n, Inc., 961 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)).
citing Stitt v. Raytown Sports Ass'n, Inc., 961 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)
green
D.J., by and through his next friend, R.J. v. First Student, Inc., and Tomika L. Richardson (2024)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Auto., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642, 656 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005)). a.
green
Miles Ex Rel. Miles v. Rich (2011)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Auto., 175 S.W.3d 642, 656 (Mo. App.2005); Stitt v. Raytown Sports Ass’n, Inc., 961 S.W.2d 927, 930-31 (Mo.App. 1998); Bums v. Black & Veatch Architects, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 450, 457 (Mo.App. 1993); Wilson v. St.
green
Haney v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2009)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Automotive, 175 S.W.3d 642, 656 (Mo.App.2005)(quoting Stitt v. Raytown Sports Ass’n, Inc., 961 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Mo.App.1998)).
green
Mitchell v. Director of Revenue (2008)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Automotive, Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642, 658 (Mo.App.2005).
green
Caballero v. Stafford (2006)
Schatz v. O’Reilly Automotive, Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642, 647 (Mo.App.
See also Burrell v. O’Reilly Auto., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (evaluating contribution claim by assessing whether third-party defendant owed duty to plaintiff, not third-party plaintiff).
evaluating contribution claim by assessing whether third-party defendant owed duty to plaintiff, not third-party plaintiff