18 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1878–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Searcy v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co.green2 sentences2025Under the Fund’s framework, therefore, the employer at the time of the last injury is liable only for compensation due from that injury, and the Fund “is liable only for the percentage of disability which exceeds the sum of the two disabilities by reason of their combination.” Searcy, 894 S.W.2d at 178 . 2024The Fund’s framework ensures “[t]he employer is liable only for the disability resulting from the work-related compensable injury, and the [Fund] is liable only for the percentage of disability which exceeds the sum of the two disabilities by reason of their combination.” Searcy v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co., 894 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (overruled on other grounds). | 1 | 2 |
Hamilton v. Archergreen1 sentence2024However, Employees simply intertwine this exception argument with their special-circumstances argument, which is not sufficient for this Court’s review. “[T]he function of an appellate court is not to serve as an advocate for the parties on appeal, and this Court must carefully safeguard its role as a neutral adjudicator.” Hamilton v. Archer, 545 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Douglas Cosby v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fundgreen1 sentence2020The commission, therefore, did not err in finding section 287.220.3 applied to Mr. Cosby’s PPD claim.[] Cosby, 579 S.W.3d at 207-08 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPgreen1 sentence2016Further, the Fund’s motion for new trial (not the motion for JNOV) asserted for the first time a legal defense that it was statutorily barred from paying punitive damages to the City based on a claim of fraud. 8 Because this alleged defense is not a jurisdictional one, it was required to be raised, as an affirmative defense or it is deemed waived. 9 McCracken v. Wal-Mart, 298 S.W.3d 473, 476-79 (Mo.banc 2009) (holding § 287.040.1 of the worker’s compensation law had to be asserted as an affirmative defense' or it was deemed waived.) The per curiam opinion concedes that its basis for reversing | 1 | 1 |
Heslop v. Sandersongreen1 sentence2014“In determining the legislature's intent, we are to read the statute as a whole and in pari materia with related sections.” Heslop v. Sanderson, 123 S.W.3d 214, 222 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemertgreen2 sentences2011Id.; see also Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 , 100 S.Ct. 745 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980). ‘Balancing the benefits’ incorporates two doctrines that apportion the costs of the litigation among those benefit-ting from it: First, the common fund doctrine permits a trial court to require non-litigants to contribute their proportionate part of the counsel fees when a litigant successfully creates, increases, or preserves a fund in which the non-litigants were entitled to share. 2011Id.; see also Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 , 100 S.Ct. 745 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980). ‘Balancing the benefits’ incorporates two doctrines that apportion the costs of the litigation among those benefit-ting from it: First, the common fund doctrine permits a trial court to require non-litigants to contribute their proportionate part of the counsel fees when a litigant successfully creates, increases, or preserves a fund in which the non-litigants were entitled to share. | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, DCgreen1 sentence2003Id. at 1314; see Ross v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, 199 B.R. 576, 579 (E.D.Va.1995). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See Matter of Estate of Holscher, 724 S.W.2d 577, 581 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Leggett v. Missouri State Life Insurance Companygreen1 sentence1996Jesser v. Mayfair Hotel, Inc., 360 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. banc 1962) (citing Leggett v. Missouri State Life Insurance Co., 342 S.W.2d 833, 936 (Mo. banc 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bailey v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2003In that case, the Commission, citing Bailey v. Industrial Commission, 137 Ill.App.3d 366 , 91 Ill.Dec. 817 , 484 N.E.2d 376 (1985), found that because the settlement agreement indicated that the Fund claim was “left open,” and the Fund was not a party to the settlement, “the settlement had no res judicata effect on the Fund and its terms were, not binding on the subsequent parties.” Id. at 273, 91 Ill.Dec. 817 , 484 N.E.2d 376 . 2003In that case, the Commission, citing Bailey v. Industrial Commission, 137 Ill.App.3d 366 , 91 Ill.Dec. 817 , 484 N.E.2d 376 (1985), found that because the settlement agreement indicated that the Fund claim was “left open,” and the Fund was not a party to the settlement, “the settlement had no res judicata effect on the Fund and its terms were, not binding on the subsequent parties.” Id. at 273, 91 Ill.Dec. 817 , 484 N.E.2d 376 . | 2 | 1999–2003 |
Brown & Hamm v. Gummersell
neutral
2 sentences1920Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, and whatever may be our individual opinions on the subject, the question has been otherwise determined both by the Supreme Court (McKittrick v. Clemens, 52 Mo. 163 ), and by this court (Brown v. Gummersell, 30 Mo. App. 341 ).” It is also true as claimed ■ by plaintiff that under the rules of good pleading the garnishee should be his reply have stated the facts relative to the order by defendant assigning this fund to the Bank of Neelyville. 1900Whatever may be the-rule elsewhere, and whatever may be our individual opinions on the subject, the question has been otherwise determined both by the supreme court (McKittrick v. Clemens, 52 Mo. 163 ), and this court (Brown v. Gummersell, 30 Mo. App. 341 ). | 2 | 1900–1920 |
Federal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Carpenter
green
1 sentence2025Employer further argues Claimant did not raise the possibility it was liable for PTD benefits if he did not prevail on his Fund claim for PTD benefits at the Commission.5 Discussion Claimant now argues if the Fund escapes liability for PTD benefits, Employer is liable for those benefits under Federal Mutual Company v. Carpenter, 371 S.W.2d 955 (Mo. 1963), which stated: The purpose of … [F]und legislation is to encourage the employment of the partially handicapped but it does not follow as a matter of course from the mere enactment of the legislation that the employer of the partially disabled | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Seifner v. Treasurer of the State-Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 63 . 2019Id. at 63 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ukman v. Hoover Motor Express Co.
green
1 sentence2016Co., 269 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. 1954), stands for the proposition that only the question of submissibility has to be included in a motion for directed verdict at the close of evidence and in a motion for JNOV. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Treasurer of the State v. Witte
green
1 sentence2014We have, however, granted the Fund's motion to dismiss its appeal in light of our Supreme Court's recent opinion in Treasurer of the State of Missouri v. Witte, 414 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2013). . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Feinberg v. Adolph K. Feinberg Hotel Trust
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jesser v. Mayfair Hotel, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Jesser v. Mayfair Hotel, Inc., 360 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. banc 1962) (citing Leggett v. Missouri State Life Insurance Co., 342 S.W.2d 833, 936 (Mo. banc 1960)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kent v. Curtis
neutral
1 sentence1878But this subject need not here be further pursued, as in the case of Kent v. Curtis, 4 Mo. App. 121 , decided since Luthy v. Woods , the present judges of this court severally expressed their views in regard to the question. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.