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 2 courts 1919–1970 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Coleman
green
2 sentences1960This clearly established that at the divorce hearing defendant was truthful and accurate in her testimony regarding the then age of the child. [16] In an action of this nature the plaintiff not only has the burden of proof, Coleman v. Coleman, supra, but he must establish the fraud in the procurement of the judgment by evidence which is clear, strong, cogent and convincing. 1960This clearly established that at the divorce hearing defendant was truthful and accurate in her testimony regarding the then age of the child. [16] In an action of this nature the plaintiff not only has the burden of proof, Coleman v. Coleman, supra, but he must establish the fraud in the procurement of the judgment by evidence which is clear, strong, cogent and convincing. | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Steele v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1970Co., 265 Mo. 97, 117 , 175 S.W. 177 , *666 182, where “no explanation or excuse for the variance” was presented. 1970Co., 265 Mo. 97, 117 , 175 S.W. 177 , *666 182, where “no explanation or excuse for the variance” was presented. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Reger v. Reger
green
2 sentences1960Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1310 , 293 S.W. 414 ; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1 , 143 S.W. 458 ; Coleman v. Coleman, supra. It is our conclusion, from a thorough study of the entire record, that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, and that his evidence was not so clear, strong, cogent and convincing that he is entitled to prevail. [17] As pleaded in plaintiff's petition, the allegation that defendant practiced fraud upon the court which heard the suit for a divorce, and upon plaintiff, in claiming that plaintiff was the father of the child, was "* * * intrinsic in the sense of having pert 1960Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1310 , 293 S.W. 414 ; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1 , 143 S.W. 458 ; Coleman v. Coleman, supra. It is our conclusion, from a thorough study of the entire record, that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, and that his evidence was not so clear, strong, cogent and convincing that he is entitled to prevail. [17] As pleaded in plaintiff's petition, the allegation that defendant practiced fraud upon the court which heard the suit for a divorce, and upon plaintiff, in claiming that plaintiff was the father of the child, was "* * * intrinsic in the sense of having pert | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Jones v. Jones
green
1 sentence1960Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1310 , 293 S.W. 414 ; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1 , 143 S.W. 458 ; Coleman v. Coleman, supra. It is our conclusion, from a thorough study of the entire record, that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, and that his evidence was not so clear, strong, cogent and convincing that he is entitled to prevail. [17] As pleaded in plaintiff's petition, the allegation that defendant practiced fraud upon the court which heard the suit for a divorce, and upon plaintiff, in claiming that plaintiff was the father of the child, was "* * * intrinsic in the sense of having pert | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Lieber v. Lieber
green
2 sentences1960Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1310 , 293 S.W. 414 ; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1 , 143 S.W. 458 ; Coleman v. Coleman, supra. It is our conclusion, from a thorough study of the entire record, that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, and that his evidence was not so clear, strong, cogent and convincing that he is entitled to prevail. [17] As pleaded in plaintiff's petition, the allegation that defendant practiced fraud upon the court which heard the suit for a divorce, and upon plaintiff, in claiming that plaintiff was the father of the child, was "* * * intrinsic in the sense of having pert 1960Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1310 , 293 S.W. 414 ; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1 , 143 S.W. 458 ; Coleman v. Coleman, supra. It is our conclusion, from a thorough study of the entire record, that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, and that his evidence was not so clear, strong, cogent and convincing that he is entitled to prevail. [17] As pleaded in plaintiff's petition, the allegation that defendant practiced fraud upon the court which heard the suit for a divorce, and upon plaintiff, in claiming that plaintiff was the father of the child, was "* * * intrinsic in the sense of having pert | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Montgomery v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence1955Montgomery v. Montgomery, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 189 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Clow v. Chapman
green
2 sentences1919Under the Married Woman’s Act, of 1889, the wife was completely severed from her husband regarding her personal and property rights, as though she was a femme sole, nothing more nor nothing less. [Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101 .] It is elementary that the wife is entitled to the protection, support and society of her husband; those ¡rights are the corollaries of the marital duties the husband owes his wife, and she, under the act mentioned, could sue him in an ordinary action of law or equity for the violation of the two former, and in a suit for a divorce for the violation of the latter; and b 1919Under the Married Woman’s Act, of 1889, the wife was completely severed from her husband regarding her personal and property rights, as though she was a femme sole, nothing more nor nothing less. [Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101 .] It is elementary that the wife is entitled to the protection, support and society of her husband; those ¡rights are the corollaries of the marital duties the husband owes his wife, and she, under the act mentioned, could sue him in an ordinary action of law or equity for the violation of the two former, and in a suit for a divorce for the violation of the latter; and b | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.