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.
20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freeman v. Gary Glass & Mirror, L.L.C.green2 sentences2015Id. *840 In Seck v. Department of Transportation, 434 S.W.3d 74, 82-83 (Mo. banc 2014), the Supreme Court examined each category of behavior in the definition of misconduct. 2013Id. | 1 | 4 |
Ritchie v. State Board of Agriculturegreen2 sentences1961See Ritchie v. State Board of Agriculture, 217 Mo.App. 202 , 260 S.W. 488 ; Meadow Park Land Co. v. School District of Kansas City, 301 Mo. 688, 701 , 257 S.W. 441 , 31 A.L.R. 343 .” The distinction between the liability of railroads or other private corporations and purely public corporations for litigation expense, etc., in delay or abandonment of condemnation proceedings is stated in St. 1931There is a distinction between the rule applicable to private *1137 or (¡masi-publie and purely public corporations which we need not go into at this time. [See Ritchie v. State Board of Agriculture, 260 S. W. 488 ; Meadow Park Land Co. v. School District of Kansas City, 301 Mo. 688, 701 ; Nauman v. Drainage District, 113 Mo. App. 575 .] However, it is contended by the defendants that in the cases cited the proceedings ivere not dismissed until after the commissioners had made their award. | 1 | 2 |
Hao v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., Hao v. State, 67 S.W.3d 661, 663 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Steven D. Green v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2017Rule 78.07(c) (“In all cases, allegations of error relating to the form or language of the judgment, including the failure to make statutorily required findings, must be raised in a motion to amend the judgment in order to be preserved for appellate review.”); Green, 494 S.W.3d at 529-30 (drawing a distinction between an error in the “form or language” of a judgment on an adjudicated claim that is subject to Rule 78.07(c), and a judgment that fails to adjudicate a claim that is subject to Rule 74.01(b)). | 1 | 1 |
Seck v. Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2015Id. *840 In Seck v. Department of Transportation, 434 S.W.3d 74, 82-83 (Mo. banc 2014), the Supreme Court examined each category of behavior in the definition of misconduct. | 1 | 1 |
Wieland v. St. Anthony's Medical Centergreen1 sentence2011Wieland, 294 S.W.3d at 79 (“[T]here is a distinction between the violation of an employer’s rule justifying the employee’s discharge and the violation of an employer’s rule warranting a finding of misconduct connected to the employee’s work.”). | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. DIV. OF EMP. SEC., ETC.green1 sentence2009“Poor workmanship, lack of judgment or the inability to do the job does not disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits on the basis of misconduct,” Powell v. Div. of Employment Sec., 669 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Mo.App.1984), and there is a distinction between the violation of an employer’s *392 rule justifying the employee’s discharge and the violation of an employer’s rule that warrants a finding of misconduct connected to the employee’s work. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Patanegreen2 sentences2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . 2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . | 1 | 1 |
Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnershipgreen2 sentences2005The issue of election of inconsistent theories has caused confusion in this case and others. 4 For that reason, this Court reiterates the doctrine as last discussed in Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnership, 851 S.W.2d 504, 506-07 (Mo. banc 1993). *711 In Whittom , this Court outlined the distinction between the doctrine requiring election of remedies and the doctrine requiring election of inconsistent theories of recovery. 2005Id. | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Gardnergreen1 sentence1958See Graham v. Gardner, Mo.App., 233 S.W.2d 797, 802 ; Blanke- *304 Baer Extract & Preserving Co. v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., Mo.App., 96 S.W.2d 648 , 652, quashed on other grounds State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meadow Park Land Co. v. School District
green
2 sentences1961See Ritchie v. State Board of Agriculture, 217 Mo.App. 202 , 260 S.W. 488 ; Meadow Park Land Co. v. School District of Kansas City, 301 Mo. 688, 701 , 257 S.W. 441 , 31 A.L.R. 343 .” The distinction between the liability of railroads or other private corporations and purely public corporations for litigation expense, etc., in delay or abandonment of condemnation proceedings is stated in St. 1931There is a distinction between the rule applicable to private *1137 or (¡masi-publie and purely public corporations which we need not go into at this time. [See Ritchie v. State Board of Agriculture, 260 S. W. 488 ; Meadow Park Land Co. v. School District of Kansas City, 301 Mo. 688, 701 ; Nauman v. Drainage District, 113 Mo. App. 575 .] However, it is contended by the defendants that in the cases cited the proceedings ivere not dismissed until after the commissioners had made their award. | 2 | 1931–1961 |
Croy v. Division of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2009Croy, 187 S.W.3d at 892 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . 2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . 2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Glass
green
1 sentence2005See U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 , 124 S.Ct. 2620, 2626 , 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004); Pistad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 ; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 ; Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Missouri Health Care Ass'n v. Missouri Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 570 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Francis v. Franklin
green
2 sentences1999As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985): *584 A mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the presumed fact if the State proves certain predicate facts. 1999As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985): *584 A mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the presumed fact if the State proves certain predicate facts. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Kershner v. Hurlburt
green
2 sentences1978Kershner v. Hurlburt, 277 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. 1955), noted the distinction between the rule against perpetuities and the rule against restraints on alienation. 1978“The rule against perpe-tuities fixes the time within which a future interest must vest, while the rule against restraints on alienation is to prevent the inalienability of present or future vested interests.” Id. at 623 . . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Nauman v. Big Tarkio Drainage District No. 2
neutral
1 sentence1931There is a distinction between the rule applicable to private *1137 or (¡masi-publie and purely public corporations which we need not go into at this time. [See Ritchie v. State Board of Agriculture, 260 S. W. 488 ; Meadow Park Land Co. v. School District of Kansas City, 301 Mo. 688, 701 ; Nauman v. Drainage District, 113 Mo. App. 575 .] However, it is contended by the defendants that in the cases cited the proceedings ivere not dismissed until after the commissioners had made their award. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Winter ex rel. Smith v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1929Defendant in error leans heavily on the cases of Winter v. Cable Co., 160 Mo. 159 , 61 S.W. 606 , and Arnold v. Bank, 285 S.W. 161 , 163. 1929Defendant in error leans heavily on the cases of Winter v. Cable Co., 160 Mo. 159 , 61 S.W. 606 , and Arnold v. Bank, 285 S.W. 161 , 163. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Arnold v. Security Bank of St. Joseph
neutral
2 sentences1929Defendant in error leans heavily on the cases of Winter v. Cable Co., 160 Mo. 159 , 61 S. W. 606 , and Arnold v. Bank, 285 S. W. 161, 163 . 1929Defendant in error leans heavily on the cases of Winter v. Cable Co., 160 Mo. 159 , 61 S.W. 606 , and Arnold v. Bank, 285 S.W. 161 , 163. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Insurance & Law Building Co. v. National Bank
green
1 sentence1922As said in Underhill "on L. & T., sec. 803, “the question is always one of construction depending upon the language of the lease in each particular case.” In the case of Insurance Co. v. National Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58, 60 , our Supreme Court, in doubting whether there was any distinction between renewal and extension, limited the application of its ruling by carefully saying that it was considering the terms “as employed in the lease before us.” If the wording of a lease justifies it, there is good reason for the distinction between a privilege of an extension and a right to renew. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Logan's Adm'r v. Caldwell
neutral
1 sentence1918This precise question upon principle, while confusing the distinction between an exception and a reservation in a conveyance, has been passed on by this court, and it was held that the wife took no interest or estate by the attempted reservation. [Logan’s Admr. v. Caldwell, 23 Mo. 372 .] In the above case the facts and the ruling thereon are shown fully by the below excerpt, to-wit: “John Logan conveyed a tract of land to the defendant, Caldwell, in fee, with the following clause, by way of exception or reservation, viz.: ‘With this exception, that said John Jjogan reserves the use of said tra | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Hawes v. Kansas City Stock-Yards Co.
neutral
1 sentence1907These cases properly draw the distinction between the instruction given in the case at bar and the one discussed in Hawes v. Stock Yards Co., 103 Mo. 60 , relied upon by appellant. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.