17 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dibrill ex rel. Wheeler v. Normandy Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2016See Dibrill v. Normandy Assocs., Inc., 383 S.W.3d 77, 84-85 (Mo. App. 2012). 2016See Dibrill v. Normandy Assocs., Inc., 383 S.W.3d 77, 84-85 (Mo.App. 2012). | 2 | 2 |
Monteer v. Prospectors Lounge, Inc.green2 sentences1994See Monteer v. Prospectors Lounge, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 898, 900-01 (Mo.App.1992). 1993See Monteer v. Prospectors Lounge, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App.1992). | 2 | 2 |
King v. Morgangreen2 sentences2013King v. Morgan, 873 S.W.2d 272, 276 (Mo.App. 2002A claimant may proceed on a negligence per se claim “if the following four elements are met: (1) There was, in fact, a violation of the statute; (2) The injured plaintiff was a member of the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute; (8) The injury complained of was of the kind the statute was designed to prevent; and (4) The violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Bradley Ex Rel. Pope v. Raygreen1 sentence2025See Bradley v. Ray, 904 S.W.2d 302, 314 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (affirming dismissal of negligence per se claim: “Because this Court finds no private cause of action can be implied under the Child Abuse Reporting Act, the alleged breach of the Act also does not amount to negligence per se” (internal citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Care & Treatment of Summers v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Generally, "a party may not claim error based on an erroneous jury instruction that the party itself submitted to the court.” Bean v. Superior Bowen As phalt Co., LLC, 340 S.W.3d 275, 279 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Martha S. French v. Stratford Housegreen1 sentence2012Likewise, although Missouri courts have not expressly determined whether rape is an injury of the nature the regulations were designed to prevent, the Supreme Court was very clear in Stiffel-man that the legislature, through the enactment of the ONHA, “intended to provide a remedy for physical and emotional abuse in the nursing home....” Id.; see also Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546, 562 (Tenn.2011) (“The two prerequisites for a negligence per se claim are present here: Ms. French belonged to the class of persons the federal and state nursing home regulations were designed | 1 | 1 |
Dost v. Pevely Dairy Companygreen1 sentence2011Cf. Dost v. Pevely Dahy Co., 273 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Mo.1954) (recognizing that legislature’s reference to "farm labor” in statutory exemption from workers' compensation law was more narrow than a reference to "agricultural labor”). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Frontier II Properties Ltd. Partnershipgreen2 sentences2008“Negligence per se arises when the legislature pronounces in a statute what the conduct of a reasonable person must be, whether or not the common law would require similar conduct, and the court then adopts the statutory standard of care to define the standard of conduct of [a] reasonable person.” Burns v. Frontier II Properties Limited Partnership, 106 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo.App. 2008"Negligence per se arises when the legislature pronounces in a statute what the conduct of a reasonable person must be, whether or not the common law would require similar conduct, and the court then adopts the statutory standard of care to define the standard of conduct of [a] reasonable person." Burns v. Frontier II Properties Limited Partnership, 106 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Lowdermilk v. Vescovo Building & Realty Co.green1 sentence2005Loudermilk v. Vescovo Building and Realty Co., Inc., 91 S.W.3d 617, 628 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Cowell v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2002See Cowell v. Thompson, 713 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Haushaltergreen1 sentence1993Sayers v. Haushalter, 493 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Mo.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Gas Service Co. v. Helmers (Two Cases)green1 sentence1982Swigart v. Lusk, 196 Mo.App. 471 , 192 S.W. 138, 140 [2-4] (1917); Gas Service Co. v. Helmers, 179 F.2d 101, 104 [5] (8th Cir.1950). | 1 | 1 |
Swigart v. Luskgreen2 sentences1982Swigart v. Lusk, 196 Mo.App. 471 , 192 S.W. 138, 140 [2-4] (1917); Gas Service Co. v. Helmers, 179 F.2d 101, 104 [5] (8th Cir.1950). 1982Swigart v. Lusk, 196 Mo.App. 471 , 192 S.W. 138, 140 [2-4] (1917); Gas Service Co. v. Helmers, 179 F.2d 101, 104 [5] (8th Cir.1950). | 1 | 1 |
George v. Wheelergreen1 sentence1982To avoid this unrealistic result, our courts attempt to temper the negligence per se rule with the general qualification “that traffic regulations are not unyielding and inflexible and are not to be applied rigidly, absolutely and preemptorily without regard to circumstances or conditions.” George v. Wheeler, 404 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Mo.App.1966) and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
Haycraft v. Grigsbygreen1 sentence1979Rather, the question becomes one of fact as to the reasonableness of the punishment, for, as noted by *287 the court in Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo. App. 354, 359 (1901) “[t]he teacher has a right to inflict reasonable punishment for misconduct by whipping, but has no right to inflict unreasonable and excessive corporal punishment in that mode or any other.” See also Christman v. Hickman, 225 Mo.App. 828 , 37 S.W.2d 672 (1931); Cook v. Neely, 143 Mo.App. 632 , 128 S.W. 233 (1910); 43 A.L.R.2d 469 , 477 (1955). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vanhook v. Somerset Health Facilities, LP
green
1 sentence2018"The negligence per se doctrine, codified through section 446.070, does not depend on a grant of a private right of action, express or implied, from the statute providing the standard of care." Id. at 819 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. St. Louis University, a Corporation
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Myers v. Morrison
green
1 sentence1995The plaintiff argued that the issue of negligence per se was “tried by consent.” Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
American Mortgage Investment Co. v. Hardin-Stockton Corp.
green
1 sentence1994In Hardin-Stockton, 671 S.W.2d at 294 , this court considered and rejected a negligence per se claim, based upon a licensing statute for real estate brokers, which is analogous to the claim made by BMA. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Washington University v. AALCO Wrecking Co.
green
1 sentence1994The trial court erred in refusing to instruct on negligence per se and for that reason we must reverse and remand for a new trial. 5 Washington Univ. v. Aalco Wrecking Co., Inc., 487 S.W.2d 487 (Mo.1972). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Christman v. Hickman
neutral
2 sentences1979Rather, the question becomes one of fact as to the reasonableness of the punishment, for, as noted by *287 the court in Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo. App. 354, 359 (1901) “[t]he teacher has a right to inflict reasonable punishment for misconduct by whipping, but has no right to inflict unreasonable and excessive corporal punishment in that mode or any other.” See also Christman v. Hickman, 225 Mo.App. 828 , 37 S.W.2d 672 (1931); Cook v. Neely, 143 Mo.App. 632 , 128 S.W. 233 (1910); 43 A.L.R.2d 469 , 477 (1955). 1979Rather, the question becomes one of fact as to the reasonableness of the punishment, for, as noted by *287 the court in Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo. App. 354, 359 (1901) “[t]he teacher has a right to inflict reasonable punishment for misconduct by whipping, but has no right to inflict unreasonable and excessive corporal punishment in that mode or any other.” See also Christman v. Hickman, 225 Mo.App. 828 , 37 S.W.2d 672 (1931); Cook v. Neely, 143 Mo.App. 632 , 128 S.W. 233 (1910); 43 A.L.R.2d 469 , 477 (1955). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Cook v. Neely
neutral
2 sentences1979Rather, the question becomes one of fact as to the reasonableness of the punishment, for, as noted by *287 the court in Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo. App. 354, 359 (1901) “[t]he teacher has a right to inflict reasonable punishment for misconduct by whipping, but has no right to inflict unreasonable and excessive corporal punishment in that mode or any other.” See also Christman v. Hickman, 225 Mo.App. 828 , 37 S.W.2d 672 (1931); Cook v. Neely, 143 Mo.App. 632 , 128 S.W. 233 (1910); 43 A.L.R.2d 469 , 477 (1955). 1979Rather, the question becomes one of fact as to the reasonableness of the punishment, for, as noted by *287 the court in Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo. App. 354, 359 (1901) “[t]he teacher has a right to inflict reasonable punishment for misconduct by whipping, but has no right to inflict unreasonable and excessive corporal punishment in that mode or any other.” See also Christman v. Hickman, 225 Mo.App. 828 , 37 S.W.2d 672 (1931); Cook v. Neely, 143 Mo.App. 632 , 128 S.W. 233 (1910); 43 A.L.R.2d 469 , 477 (1955). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.