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 1982–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
David and Jill Kehlenbrink v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2022"The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute." Kehlenbrink v. Dir. of Revenue, 577 S.W.3d 798, 800 (Mo. banc 2019) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Douglas Cosby v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
green
1 sentence2020We reverse the Commission’s decision because, consistent with the Eastern and Western Districts of this Court, we believe the Supreme Court of Missouri resolved the conflict between subsections 2 and 3 of section 287.220 in Cosby v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, 579 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. banc 2019), and that resolution requires the application of subsection 2 to Claimant’s claim rather than subsection 3. 1 1 Claimant also raises a second point on appeal in which Claimant asserts that the Commission “failed to reconcile the conflicting language” in other s | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Angus v. Second Injury Fund
green
1 sentence2015In support of its position, the Treasurer cites Angus v. Second Injury Fund, 328 S.W.3d 294 (Mo.App.W.D.2010), Wright v. Sports Associated. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McCormack v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Because the “filing of a suit on the claim constitutes a demand,” Eason’s “demand” against the Second Injury Fund occurred when he added the Treasurer to his claim. 956 S.W.2d at 314 . 2012Because the “filing of a suit on the claim constitutes a demand,” Eason’s “demand” against the Second Injury Fund occurred when he added the Treasurer to his claim. 956 S.W.2d at 314 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Stewart v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1982The first development was Stewart v. Johnson, supra, holding that the employer’s liability on a second injury resulting in permanent total disability is to be determined under Section 287.190 (as it was here). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.