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.
22 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kessinger v. Kessingergreen2 sentences2019Roller v. Butler, 367 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996)). 2016Further, this handwritten-typewritten distinction exists with regard to judicial initials constituting a “signature.” Compare Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (handwritten initials satisfy the signature requirement) with Grissum v. Soldi, 87 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (typewritten initials do not). | 3 | 3 |
Hensel v. American Air Network, Inc.green2 sentences2008Where a petition is not signed or signed by an improper person, Rule 55.03 provides the sanction — the petition shall be stricken unless the omission is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party filing same. 189 S.W.3d at 584 (footnote omitted, emphasis added). 2007As noted in Hensel v. American Air Network, Inc., 189 S.W.3d 582, 583 (Mo. banc 2006), the purpose of the signature requirement is not to deprive litigants of a right of action. | 3 | 3 |
Glover v. Stategreen2 sentences2019The State’s argument only underscores the importance of the envelope and postmark as presumptively reliable, objective evidence of the date of mailing. 9 55.03(a), which provides that “[a]n unsigned filing . . . shall be stricken unless the omission is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the . . . party filing same.” Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425 , 428 & n.3 (Mo. banc 2007) (permitting filing of signed postconviction relief motion under Rule 55.03(a), while case is pending on appeal); Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78 , 79- 80 (Mo. banc 2006); Wallingford v. State, 131 S.W 2008In Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Mo. banc 2007), the Missouri Supreme Court held that for purposes of Rule 29.15 the signature requirement is not jurisdictional. | 2 | 3 |
Tooley v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000) (noting that the signature requirement is not a hollow, meaningless technicality). 2005Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000); Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 929 , 111 S.Ct. 2044 , 114 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). 1 The Supreme Court has instructed: The signature requirement is not a hollow, meaningless technicality. | 2 | 3 |
In the Interest of Proughgreen2 sentences2019Roller v. Butler, 367 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996)). 2004See In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo.App.1999). 1 Here, however, the docket entry in question bears neither the trial judge’s signature nor his initials. 2 Without a final judgment, this court has no jurisdiction. | 2 | 2 |
Grissum v. Soldigreen2 sentences2016Further, this handwritten-typewritten distinction exists with regard to judicial initials constituting a “signature.” Compare Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (handwritten initials satisfy the signature requirement) with Grissum v. Soldi, 87 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (typewritten initials do not). 2006Grissum v. Soldi, 87 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo.App.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Jordan v. Peetgreen2 sentences2014See Jordan v. Peet, 409 S.W.3d 553, 558 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (even if non-movant fails to properly respond to motion for summary judgment, motion may still be denied if movant’s factual assertions are not sufficient to entitle movant to judgment as matter of law). 2014See Jordan v. Peet, 409 S.W.3d 553, 558 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (even if non-movant fails to properly respond to motion for summary judgment, motion may still be denied if movant’s factual assertions are not sufficient to entitle movant to judgment as matter of law). | 2 | 2 |
Kindred v. City of Smithvillegreen1 sentence2023See Kindred v. City of Smithville, 292 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (“A contract that fails to comply with Section 432.070 is void ab initio, not merely voidable.”). | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. Division of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2021Hoover v. Hoover, 581 S.W.3d 638 , 641 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019), transfer denied (Sept. 3, 2019); Nichols v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 399 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). 4 ZVPR’s motion to dismiss Gerald Puetz’s appeal because he failed to comply with the signature requirement of Rule 55.03 in that he failed to sign the appellants’ opening brief is also denied. | 1 | 1 |
Temares v. Lsk Lebanon, Inc.green1 sentence2019Roller v. Butler, 367 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Wallingford v. Stategreen1 sentence2019The State’s argument only underscores the importance of the envelope and postmark as presumptively reliable, objective evidence of the date of mailing. 9 55.03(a), which provides that “[a]n unsigned filing . . . shall be stricken unless the omission is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the . . . party filing same.” Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425 , 428 & n.3 (Mo. banc 2007) (permitting filing of signed postconviction relief motion under Rule 55.03(a), while case is pending on appeal); Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78 , 79- 80 (Mo. banc 2006); Wallingford v. State, 131 S.W | 1 | 1 |
Butler ex rel. Roller v. Butlergreen1 sentence2019Roller v. Butler, 367 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Elam v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Elam v. State, 210 S.W.3d 216 (Mo.App.2006); Scott v. State, 180 S.W.3d 519 (Mo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000); Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 929 , 111 S.Ct. 2044 , 114 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). 1 The Supreme Court has instructed: The signature requirement is not a hollow, meaningless technicality. | 1 | 1 |
Great Western Printing Co. v. Belchergreen2 sentences1982Great Western Print *149 ing Co. v. Belcher, 127 Mo.App. 133 , 104 S.W. 894, 895 (1907); 2 Corbin on Contracts § 522 (1960). 1982Great Western Print *149 ing Co. v. Belcher, 127 Mo.App. 133 , 104 S.W. 894, 895 (1907); 2 Corbin on Contracts § 522 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence2019The State’s argument only underscores the importance of the envelope and postmark as presumptively reliable, objective evidence of the date of mailing. 9 55.03(a), which provides that “[a]n unsigned filing . . . shall be stricken unless the omission is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the . . . party filing same.” Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425 , 428 & n.3 (Mo. banc 2007) (permitting filing of signed postconviction relief motion under Rule 55.03(a), while case is pending on appeal); Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78 , 79- 80 (Mo. banc 2006); Wallingford v. State, 131 S.W | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kearns v. New York Community Bank
green
1 sentence2019“The rule is an 10 “It has long been recognized that a judge’s handwritten initials added to a docket entry are sufficient to satisfy the signature requirement of Rule 74.01(a).” Kearns v. New York Cmty. Bank, 389 S.W.3d 294 , 297 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (citing Butler ex rel. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
The Parker-Washington Co. v. Field
green
1 sentence2018With ordinances, "[t]he purpose of the presiding officer's signature is to furnish the mayor with evidence of the fact that the ordinance had passed the house." Parker-Washington Co. v. Field , 214 S.W. 402 , 403 (Mo. App. 1919) ; see also State ex rel. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence2007See Elam v. State, 210 S.W.3d 216 (Mo.App.2006); Scott v. State, 180 S.W.3d 519 (Mo.App.2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sindram v. Ahalt
green
1 sentence2005Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000); Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 929 , 111 S.Ct. 2044 , 114 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). 1 The Supreme Court has instructed: The signature requirement is not a hollow, meaningless technicality. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cooper v. Lizotte
green
1 sentence2002However, in Cooper v. Lizotte, 965 S.W.2d 894 , 896 n. 3 (Mo.App.1998), we explained that typewritten initials of the judge are insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.