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.
16 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. Rittergreen2 sentences2016Specifically, “Hansen did not ‘definitively determine the precise parameters of a co-employee’s personal duties to a fellow employee sufficient to support an actionable claim of negligence.”’ Id. at 483 (quoting Hansen, 375 S.W.3d at 217 ). 2015Specifically, “Hansen did not ‘definitively determine the 2 Those duties are: (1) “‘to provide a safe workplace; (2) to provide safe equipment in the workplace; (3) to warn employees about the existence of dangers of which the employees could not reasonably be expected to be aware; (4) to provide a sufficient number of competent fellow employees; and (5) to promulgate and enforce rules governing employee conduct for the purpose of enhancing safety.’” Hansen v. Ritter, 375 S.W.3d 201, 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting Gunnett v. Girardier Bldg. & Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 632 , 638 n.8 (Mo. App. E. | 1 | 6 |
Hoffmeister v. Kranawettergreen1 sentence2024“The elements of unjust enrichment are: (1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefit; and (3) acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that without payment would be inequitable.” Hoffmeister v. Kranawetter, 407 S.W.3d 59, 61 (Mo. App. 2013); Nationwide Transfer LLC v. Neally Law, LLC, 674 S.W.3d 488 , 491 (Mo. App. 2023). | 1 | 1 |
Natalie McKinney v. City of Kansas City, Missourigreen1 sentence2023McKinney v. City of Kansas City, 576 S.W.3d 194, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Juvenile Officer v. D. P.C. (In re Interest of B.N.C.)green1 sentence2023See Clark, 623 S.W.3d at 203 (citing Bram, 564 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; see also Section 213.101.4, RSMo (Cum. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Stricker v. Hansongreen1 sentence2016Stricker, 858 S.W.2d at 775 (whether the non-taxpayer losing bidder “has standing as a participant in the public contract process is of no consequence to this action and is not addressed by this court”). 4 Aside from its misplaced reliance on Stricker, Metropolitan Express makes the mistake of focusing on the statements in La Mar describing an actionable violation of public bidding laws but ignoring the holding in La Mar that only taxpayers may bring such claims. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Middletongreen1 sentence2001See Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 466 . | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence1998Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Crockett v. Mid-America Health Servicesgreen1 sentence1993Crockett v. Mid-America Health Services, 780 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Mo.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of McCormack v. McCormack
green
2 sentences1993Appellant further contends that, as to the motion of Western Surety Company, the claim is not "on its face" subject to dismissal "for being barred by the statute of limitations in section 516.120 RSMO." The adequacy of pleadings in a probate proceeding brought pursuant to § 473.340 was addressed in Estate of McCormack v. McCormack, 676 S.W.2d 928 (Mo.App. 1984). 1993Appellant further contends that, as to the motion of Western Surety Company, the claim is not “on its face” subject to dismissal “for being barred by the statute of limitations in section 516.120 RSMO.” The adequacy of pleadings in a probate proceeding brought pursuant to § 473.340 was addressed in Estate of McCormack v. McCormack, 676 S.W.2d 928 (Mo.App.1984). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
G. Steven Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Cox, 473 S.W.3d at 118-19 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Leeper v. Asmus
green
1 sentence2016Specifically, “Hansen did not ‘definitively determine the precise parameters of a co-employee’s personal duties to a fellow employee sufficient to support an actionable claim of negligence.”’ Id. at 483 (quoting Hansen, 375 S.W.3d at 217 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gunnett v. Girardier Building & Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2015Specifically, “Hansen did not ‘definitively determine the 2 Those duties are: (1) “‘to provide a safe workplace; (2) to provide safe equipment in the workplace; (3) to warn employees about the existence of dangers of which the employees could not reasonably be expected to be aware; (4) to provide a sufficient number of competent fellow employees; and (5) to promulgate and enforce rules governing employee conduct for the purpose of enhancing safety.’” Hansen v. Ritter, 375 S.W.3d 201, 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting Gunnett v. Girardier Bldg. & Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 632 , 638 n.8 (Mo. App. E. 2015Specifically, “Hansen did not ‘definitively determine the 2 Those duties are: (1) “‘to provide a safe workplace; (2) to provide safe equipment in the workplace; (3) to warn employees about the existence of dangers of which the employees could not reasonably be expected to be aware; (4) to provide a sufficient number of competent fellow employees; and (5) to promulgate and enforce rules governing employee conduct for the purpose of enhancing safety.’” Hansen v. Ritter, 375 S.W.3d 201, 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting Gunnett v. Girardier Bldg. & Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 632 , 638 n.8 (Mo. App. E. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Badami v. Gaertner
green
1 sentence2012It was unnecessary, therefore, for the Badami court to decide whether to “fix our compensation legislation with [Lambert’s ] independently developed conceptual change,” 630 S.W.2d at 178 ; see Sylcox, 38 S.W.2d at 501 (“[T]he liability of one at common law is left unaffected by the act, except in so far as it has been expressly taken away by it....”). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Robinson v. Hooker
green
1 sentence2012We recognize, of course, that this court in Robinson abrogated Badami’s judicial construct of the Act and thus eliminated immunity for a co-employee who fails to perform one of the employer’s non-delega-ble duties. 15 323 S.W.3d at 424-25 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.