16 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1895–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Bi-State Development Agencygreen1 sentence2020Agency, 793 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Mo. banc 1990)). | 1 | 1 |
Gibbs v. Blockbuster, Inc.green1 sentence2020For example, the record reflects that the District had the power to bar Davis from accepting future substitute teaching assignments in the District, and the District’s 2015 Annual Employee Compliance Modules twice defined “staff member” to include “substitute employees.” “[A]s the Missouri Supreme Court has noted, generally the relationship of principal-agent or employer-employee is a question of fact to be determined by the jury when, from the evidence adduced on the question, there may be a fair difference of opinion as to the existence of the relationship.” Gibbs v. Blockbuster, Inc., 318 S | 1 | 1 |
Soars v. Easter Seals Midwestgreen1 sentence2019See Soars, 563 S.W.3d at 114 ; Pinkerton, 531 S.W.3d at 48 ; Latenser, 549 S.W.3d at 463-64 ; Dotson, 472 S.W.3d at 604. | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2019Our Supreme Court, in Pinkerton, found clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties intent to delegate threshold issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator simply where the agreement referenced AAA rules, which in turn included a rule providing that the arbitrator “shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.” Pinkerton, 531 S.W.3d at 48 ; accord NutraPet Systems, 542 S.W.3d at 416 (holding issues of arbitrability for arbitrator, not court, where agreement specifically incor 2019See Soars, 563 S.W.3d at 114 ; Pinkerton, 531 S.W.3d at 48 ; Latenser, 549 S.W.3d at 463-64 ; Dotson, 472 S.W.3d at 604. | 1 | 1 |
Bellemere v. Cable-Dahmer Chevrolet Inc.green1 sentence2017It delegates -to the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or- her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence; scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” Mr. Pinkerton also cites Jimenez v. Cintas Corp., 475 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Mo. App. 2015), Hopwood v. CitiFinancial, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Mo. App. 2014), and Bellemere v. Cable-Dahmer Chevrolet, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Mo. App. 2013), for the proposition that courts cannot delegate formation issues to an arbitrator. | 1 | 1 |
Hopwood v. CitiFinancial, Inc.green1 sentence2017It delegates -to the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or- her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence; scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” Mr. Pinkerton also cites Jimenez v. Cintas Corp., 475 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Mo. App. 2015), Hopwood v. CitiFinancial, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Mo. App. 2014), and Bellemere v. Cable-Dahmer Chevrolet, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Mo. App. 2013), for the proposition that courts cannot delegate formation issues to an arbitrator. | 1 | 1 |
Kathryn Jimenez, Petitioner/Respondent v. Cintas Corporationgreen1 sentence2017It delegates -to the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or- her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence; scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” Mr. Pinkerton also cites Jimenez v. Cintas Corp., 475 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Mo. App. 2015), Hopwood v. CitiFinancial, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Mo. App. 2014), and Bellemere v. Cable-Dahmer Chevrolet, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Mo. App. 2013), for the proposition that courts cannot delegate formation issues to an arbitrator. | 1 | 1 |
Vinson v. Vinsongreen1 sentence1995Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Mo. banc 1984); Vinson v. Vinson, 725 S.W.2d 121, 123 (Mo.App.1987); and Rhodes v. Marsh, 807 S.W.2d at 223 . *941 The court simply rules the trial judge had the power to rule upon the N.O.V. motion and that this court can, and will, examine that ruling. | 1 | 1 |
Rustici v. Weidemeyergreen1 sentence1995Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Mo. banc 1984); Vinson v. Vinson, 725 S.W.2d 121, 123 (Mo.App.1987); and Rhodes v. Marsh, 807 S.W.2d at 223 . *941 The court simply rules the trial judge had the power to rule upon the N.O.V. motion and that this court can, and will, examine that ruling. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Pinkerton v. Fahnestock
green
2 sentences2020The commercial arbitration rules at issue in Pinkerton mirrored the rules at issue here as they provided that the arbitrator “shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” 531 S.W.3d at 48 . 2020Section R-7 of the AAA Commercial Rules defined the scope of the arbitrator’s “jurisdiction” as follows: “The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” Id. at 41 . | 8 | 2018–2022 |
Newton County Farmers & Fruit-Growers Exchange v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1934Co., 326 Mo. 617 , 31 S.W.2d 803 .] Respondent does not point out the source of, or any statute conferring upon this defendant association, such a power or privilege and it does not appear upon the record before us that the association legally had such a power or privilege. 1934Co., 326 Mo. 617 , 31 S.W.2d 803 .] Respondent does not point out the source of, or any statute conferring upon this defendant association, such a power or privilege and it does not appear upon the record before us that the association legally had such a power or privilege. | 2 | 1933–1934 |
Triarch Industries, Inc. v. Crabtree
green
1 sentence2022Arbitration agreements are placed “on an equal footing with other contracts, and courts will examine arbitration agreements in the same light as they would examine any contractual agreement.” Pinkerton, 531 S.W.3d at 48 (quoting Triarch Indus., Inc., 158 S.W.3d at 776 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fogelsong v. Joe Machens Auto. Grp., Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Section R-14 of the AAA Consumer Rules states that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the 1 In setting forth the facts underlying this appeal, we borrow liberally from our opinion in Fogelsong I without further attribution. 3 existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fallo v. High-Tech Institute
green
1 sentence2019Fallo, 559 F.3d at 877 (citing R-7. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Carla Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc., d/b/a Bristol Manor, and David Furnell
green
1 sentence2019"A dispute 'relating to the applicability or enforceability' of the agreement presupposes the formation of a contract." Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc. , 450 S.W.3d 770 , 774 (Mo. banc 2014). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rhodes v. Marsh
green
1 sentence1995Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Mo. banc 1984); Vinson v. Vinson, 725 S.W.2d 121, 123 (Mo.App.1987); and Rhodes v. Marsh, 807 S.W.2d at 223 . *941 The court simply rules the trial judge had the power to rule upon the N.O.V. motion and that this court can, and will, examine that ruling. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Elliott v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1958Plaintiff’s argument in this court is predicated upon four basic contentions of law: (1) The trial court was without jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens; (2) If the trial court had the power to apply the doctrine of forum non conven-iens, such doctrine should be rejected as against public policy; (3) If this court should decide that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule the motion, the sustainment of it was an abuse of discretion; and (4) The case of Elliott v. Johnston, 365 Mo. 881 , 292 S.W.2d 589 , upon which the trial court ruled the mo 1958Plaintiff’s argument in this court is predicated upon four basic contentions of law: (1) The trial court was without jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens; (2) If the trial court had the power to apply the doctrine of forum non conven-iens, such doctrine should be rejected as against public policy; (3) If this court should decide that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule the motion, the sustainment of it was an abuse of discretion; and (4) The case of Elliott v. Johnston, 365 Mo. 881 , 292 S.W.2d 589 , upon which the trial court ruled the mo | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Klein v. Laudman
green
1 sentence1903And an apt illustration of the power of the presumption of innocence to overcome other presumptions is found in Klein v. Landman, 29 Mo. 259 . | 1 | 1903–1903 |
Meyer v. Chambers
neutral
1 sentence1895Watkins v. Donnelly, 88 Mo. 322 ; Meyer v. Chambers, 68 Mo. 626 ; Baker v. Raley, 18 Mo. App. 563 . | 1 | 1895–1895 |
Watkins v. Donnelly
green
1 sentence1895Watkins v. Donnelly, 88 Mo. 322 ; Meyer v. Chambers, 68 Mo. 626 ; Baker v. Raley, 18 Mo. App. 563 . | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.