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.
15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. Burlington Northern, Inc.green2 sentences1994Holder, previously filed herein, as if the same were set forth here in haec verba.” By pleading in this manner, Plaintiff failed to include a single affirmative allegation of conduct by Karlyn that allegedly caused the default by Burger Max, Inc., or decreased the amount that would have otherwise been available from Burger Max, Inc. After specifically listing certain affirmative defenses, Rule 55.08 provides that a party must plead “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” “If a defendant intends to raise a defense based on facts not included in the allegations neces 1990Shaw v. Burlington *401 Northern, Inc., 617 S.W.2d 455 (Mo.App., S.D.1981). | 2 | 3 |
Holdener v. Fiesergreen2 sentences2003"A party must set forth any `matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.' An affirmative defense is defined as one which `seeks to defeat or avoid plaintiff's cause of action [and] ... avers that even if the petition is true the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid legal responsibility.'" Holdener v. Fieser, 971 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Mo.App. 2003“A party must set forth any ‘matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.’ An affirmative defense is defined as one which ‘seeks to defeat or avoid plaintiffs cause of action [and] ... avers that even if the petition is true the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid legal responsibility.’” Holdener v. Fieser, 971 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Dorris v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Rule 55.08’s list of affirmative defenses is not exhaustive and pertains to “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” An affirmative defense is one that states, “even if the allegations of the petition are taken as true, the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid the legal responsibility alleged.” Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Century Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. CNA/Transportation Insurance Co.green1 sentence2008Co., 23 S.W.3d 874, 877 (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance of Missouri v. Hilderbrandgreen1 sentence1998An affirmative defense is defined as one which “seeks to defeat or avoid plaintiffs cause of action [and] ... avers that even if the petition is true the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid legal responsibility.” Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance of Missouri v. Hilderbrand, 926 S.W.2d 944, 948 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Gee v. Geegreen1 sentence1994Rule 55.07 requires that “[a] party shall state in short and plain terms his de *325 fenses to each claim.” Rule 55.08 requires that a party “plead ... ‘matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.’ ” Gee v. Gee, 605 S.W.2d 815, 817 [3] (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.green1 sentence1981Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 554 S.W.2d 477, 480 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Semo Grain Co. v. Oliver Farms, Inc.green1 sentence1976Semo Grain Company v. Oliver Farms, Inc., 530 S.W.2d 256, 258 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Meisel v. Muellergreen1 sentence1956Metcalf v. American Surety Co., 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5] ; Meisel v. Mueller, Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 526, 532 [1, 2] ; Knight v. Calvert Fire Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1956Metcalf v. American Surety Co., 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5] ; Meisel v. Mueller, Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 526, 532 [1, 2] ; Knight v. Calvert Fire Ins. 1956Metcalf v. American Surety Co., 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5] ; Meisel v. Mueller, Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 526, 532 [1, 2] ; Knight v. Calvert Fire Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Overcash v. Yellow Transit Co.green2 sentences1956“In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption .of risk, contributory negligence, * *■ * estoppel, * ■ * * . payment, re *109 lease, res judicata, *■ * * and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. * * * ” § 509.090, The defense of res judicata is not among the specified objections in § 509.290; but we held in Hamilton v. Linn, 355 Mo. 1178 , 200 S.W.2d 69 [5, 6], the plea of res judicata to be a permissive but not a mandatory objection within “and other matters” of § 509.290 and 1956“In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption .of risk, contributory negligence, * *■ * estoppel, * ■ * * . payment, re *109 lease, res judicata, *■ * * and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. * * * ” § 509.090, The defense of res judicata is not among the specified objections in § 509.290; but we held in Hamilton v. Linn, 355 Mo. 1178 , 200 S.W.2d 69 [5, 6], the plea of res judicata to be a permissive but not a mandatory objection within “and other matters” of § 509.290 and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greene County v. State
green
1 sentence1997The holding in Greene County indicates that sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense. 926 S.W.2d at 704 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gennari v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
green
1 sentence1962Gennari v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 55, 60 ; Rucker v. Alton R. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Prewitt v. Witts
green
2 sentences1962Matters constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense must be affirmatively pleaded, section 509.090 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Prewitt v. Witte, 224 Mo.App. 836 , 26 S.W.2d 1020 , and the burden of proof on all affirmative defenses rests upon the defendant, as the asserting party. 1962Matters constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense must be affirmatively pleaded, section 509.090 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Prewitt v. Witte, 224 Mo.App. 836 , 26 S.W.2d 1020 , and the burden of proof on all affirmative defenses rests upon the defendant, as the asserting party. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Clarke v. Organ
green
2 sentences1962Respondent also insists that despite the law as declared in Clarke v. Organ, supra, § 473.360 is an affirmative defense and does not extinguish the cause of action and must be pleaded as a defense in the answer of any defendant allegedly entitled to assert it, citing (1) S.Ct.Rule 55.10, V.A.M.R. which, after enumerating certain specific defenses that must be affirmatively pleaded, closes with the general phrase “and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense”; (2) S.Ct.Rule 55.43, which provides, in substance, to the extent here pertinent, that all defenses not raised i 1962Before discussion of this contention, we should mention that Clarke v. Organ, supra, 329 S.W.2d 670 , treated with the distinction between the necessity of pleading the general statute of limitations as distinguished from the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of § 437.360, saying, loc. cit. 676-677: “The statutory notice (section 473.360, subd. 2) or copies of process and service (section 473.367) were specifically required to be filed ‘in the probate court/ not merely to be served on the administrator. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Rabin v. Krogsdale
green
1 sentence1962Respondent also insists that despite the law as declared in Clarke v. Organ, supra, § 473.360 is an affirmative defense and does not extinguish the cause of action and must be pleaded as a defense in the answer of any defendant allegedly entitled to assert it, citing (1) S.Ct.Rule 55.10, V.A.M.R. which, after enumerating certain specific defenses that must be affirmatively pleaded, closes with the general phrase “and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense”; (2) S.Ct.Rule 55.43, which provides, in substance, to the extent here pertinent, that all defenses not raised i | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Hamilton v. Linn
green
2 sentences1956“In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption .of risk, contributory negligence, * *■ * estoppel, * ■ * * . payment, re *109 lease, res judicata, *■ * * and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. * * * ” § 509.090, The defense of res judicata is not among the specified objections in § 509.290; but we held in Hamilton v. Linn, 355 Mo. 1178 , 200 S.W.2d 69 [5, 6], the plea of res judicata to be a permissive but not a mandatory objection within “and other matters” of § 509.290 and 1956“In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption .of risk, contributory negligence, * *■ * estoppel, * ■ * * . payment, re *109 lease, res judicata, *■ * * and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. * * * ” § 509.090, The defense of res judicata is not among the specified objections in § 509.290; but we held in Hamilton v. Linn, 355 Mo. 1178 , 200 S.W.2d 69 [5, 6], the plea of res judicata to be a permissive but not a mandatory objection within “and other matters” of § 509.290 and | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Hill v. Hill
green
1 sentence1956Hill v. Hill, Mo.App, 236 S.W.2d 394 , Carr on Missouri Civil Procedure, Vol. 1, page 320, et seq. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.