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 1965–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rice v. Hodappgreen2 sentences2017“In Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well.” Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. banc 1996). 2014However, the cause of action for breach of contract was not independently pled, and "[i]n Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well." Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. banc 1996); see also Thomas, 259 S.W.3d at 587 ("A case will be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for the underlying tort."); see, e.g., Wigley v. Capital Bank of Sw. | 4 | 4 |
Envirotech, Inc. v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2014However, the cause of action for breach of contract was not independently pled, and "[i]n Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy *321 claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well.” Rice v. Ho-dapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. banc 1996); see also Thomas, 259 S.W.3d at 587 ("A case will be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for the underlying tort.”); see, e.g., Wigley v. Capital Bank of Sw. 2014However, the cause of action for breach of contract was not independently pled, and "[i]n Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well." Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. banc 1996); see also Thomas, 259 S.W.3d at 587 ("A case will be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for the underlying tort."); see, e.g., Wigley v. Capital Bank of Sw. | 2 | 2 |
Oak Bluff Partners, Inc. v. Meyergreen2 sentences2022Id. (“In Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well.”). 2017Therefore, if the "tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well." Id. (quoting Oak Bluff Partners, Inc. v. Meyer , 3 S.W.3d 777 , 781 (Mo. banc 1999) ). | 1 | 3 |
Wigley v. Capital Bank of Southwest Missourigreen2 sentences2014Mo., 887 S.W.2d 715 , 722 n. 5 (Mo.App.S.D.1994) ("Conspiracy to breach was not a theory here claimed or submitted. 2014Mo., 887 S.W.2d 715 , 722 n.5 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) ("Conspiracy to breach was not a theory here claimed or submitted. | 1 | 2 |
Summers v. Hagengreen1 sentence2019Int’l, 97 P.3d 140, 146 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Dalton v. Meister, 239 N.W.2d 9, 18-19 (Wis. 1976); McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256, 262-63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985), vacated on other grounds by 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986); Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165, 1169-70 (Alaska 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Double Oak Construction L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Development International, L.L.C.green1 sentence2019Int’l, 97 P.3d 140, 146 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Dalton v. Meister, 239 N.W.2d 9, 18-19 (Wis. 1976); McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256, 262-63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985), vacated on other grounds by 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986); Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165, 1169-70 (Alaska 1993). | 1 | 1 |
McElhanon v. Hinggreen1 sentence2019Int’l, 97 P.3d 140, 146 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Dalton v. Meister, 239 N.W.2d 9, 18-19 (Wis. 1976); McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256, 262-63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985), vacated on other grounds by 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986); Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165, 1169-70 (Alaska 1993). | 1 | 1 |
McElhanon v. Hinggreen1 sentence2019Int’l, 97 P.3d 140, 146 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Dalton v. Meister, 239 N.W.2d 9, 18-19 (Wis. 1976); McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256, 262-63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985), vacated on other grounds by 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986); Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165, 1169-70 (Alaska 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Dalton v. Meistergreen1 sentence2019Int’l, 97 P.3d 140, 146 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Dalton v. Meister, 239 N.W.2d 9, 18-19 (Wis. 1976); McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256, 262-63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985), vacated on other grounds by 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986); Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165, 1169-70 (Alaska 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Kerber v. Rowegreen2 sentences2015See Kerber v. Rowe, 348 Mo. 1125 , 156 S.W.2d 925, 927-28 (1941) (a constructive trust is dependent upon an underlying claim, such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, and application of a statute of limitations is determined by the nature of the claim); Gettings v. Farr, 41 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Mo.App.2001) ("if the underlying wrongful act alleged as part of a civil conspiracy fails to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim also fails”). 2015See Kerber v. Rowe, 348 Mo. 1125 , 156 S.W.2d 925, 927-28 (1941) (a constructive trust is dependent upon an underlying claim, such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, and application of a statute of limitations is determined by the nature of the claim); Gettings v. Farr, 41 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Mo.App.2001) ("if the underlying wrongful act alleged as part of a civil conspiracy fails to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim also fails”). | 1 | 1 |
Gettings v. Farrgreen1 sentence2015See Kerber v. Rowe, 348 Mo. 1125 , 156 S.W.2d 925, 927-28 (1941) (a constructive trust is dependent upon an underlying claim, such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, and application of a statute of limitations is determined by the nature of the claim); Gettings v. Farr, 41 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Mo.App.2001) ("if the underlying wrongful act alleged as part of a civil conspiracy fails to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim also fails”). | 1 | 1 |
Lyn-Flex West, Inc. v. Dieckhausgreen1 sentence2012“The term unlawful, as it relates to civil conspiracy, is not limited to conduct that is criminally liable, but rather may include individuals associating for the purpose of causing or inducing a breach of contract or business expectancy.” Lyn-Flex West, Inc. v. Dieckhaus, 24 S.W.3d 693, 700-01 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Glover v. Stategreen1 sentence1984State v. McCollum, 598 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1980); Glover v. State, 528 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCollumgreen1 sentence1984State v. McCollum, 598 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1980); Glover v. State, 528 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Western Blue Print Co. v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2023“Therefore, if the ‘tortious act[] alleged as [an] element[] of a civil conspiracy claim fail[s] . . . , then the conspiracy claim fails as well.’” Id. (quoting W. 2013“In Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well.” Id. | 2 | 2013–2023 |
8000 Maryland, LLC v. Huntleigh Financial Services Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Therefore, if the "tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well." Id. (quoting Oak Bluff Partners, Inc. v. Meyer , 3 S.W.3d 777 , 781 (Mo. banc 1999) ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dueker v. Gill
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 664 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
red
2 sentences1991In Gibbs , the Supreme Court similarly found that, in the context of a conspiracy claim against the defendant Union, the Court’s instructions failed to keep the conspiracy claim within proper bounds and did not focus the jury’s attention upon violence or threats of violence “as the essential predicate of any recovery it might award.” Id. 383 U.S. at 733-35 , 86 S.Ct. at 1143 . 1991In Gibbs , the Supreme Court similarly found that, in the context of a conspiracy claim against the defendant Union, the Court’s instructions failed to keep the conspiracy claim within proper bounds and did not focus the jury’s attention upon violence or threats of violence “as the essential predicate of any recovery it might award.” Id. 383 U.S. at 733-35 , 86 S.Ct. at 1143 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Hatten
green
1 sentence1980State v. Hatten, 561 S.W.2d 706 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Maddock v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1965We further held, as to the conspiracy claim against the individual defendants, that “the allegation^} that they conspired together do not authorize the plaintiff to maintain his action when he could not maintain it against one defendant, if sued alone. * * * [A] conspiracy of itself furnishes no cause of action, because from the mere forming of it no possible damages can accrue.” See also Maddock v. Lewis, Mo.Sup., 386 S.W.2d 406, 412 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.