Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Tyree v. Tyreegreen1 sentence2001“Under this rule, a party to a dissolution case who seeks to have a default judgment therein set aside must do two things: First, the moving party must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 74.05(d), and, second, such party must show ‘good cause’ for setting aside the dissolution judgment at an evidentiary hearing.” Tyree v. Tyree, 978 S.W.2d 846, 849 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Safe-Ride Services
green
2 sentences2001“Rule 74.05 allows the court to set aside a default judgment ‘within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment,’ and upon a showing of a meritorious defense and for good cause.” Young, 23 S.W.3d at 732 (quoting Rule 74.05). 2001“Rule 74.05 allows the court to set aside a default judgment ‘within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment,’ and upon a showing of a meritorious defense and for good cause.” Young, 23 S.W.3d at 732 (quoting Rule 74.05). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Brueggemann v. Elbert
green
1 sentence2000Brueggemann, 948 S.W.2d at 214 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cotleur v. Danziger
green
2 sentences1997It requires only a showing of “good cause” and does not require a showing of a meritorious defense (as required in Rule 74.05(d)) or that counsel’s actions constituted “excusable neglect” (as required by Rule 74.06(e)) Cotleur, supra. “Good cause” encompasses the occurrence of mistakes or conduct that is not intentionally or recklessly designed to impede the judicial process. 1997Schulte v. Venture Stores, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.1992)[l] (overruled on other grounds in Cotleur, supra); Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, 778 S.W.2d 851 (Mo.App.1989) Lc. 854. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Schulte v. Venture Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Schulte v. Venture Stores, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.1992)[l] (overruled on other grounds in Cotleur, supra); Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, 778 S.W.2d 851 (Mo.App.1989) Lc. 854. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gibson Ex Rel. Woodall v. Elley
green
1 sentence1997Schulte v. Venture Stores, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.1992)[l] (overruled on other grounds in Cotleur, supra); Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, 778 S.W.2d 851 (Mo.App.1989) Lc. 854. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hinson v. Hinson
green
1 sentence1981Hinson v. Hinson, 518 S.W.2d 330 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.