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 1977–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Romanacegreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Schultz by Schultz v. Romanace, 906 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995) (holding that when plaintiff filed amended petition and named specific, new defendants, but did not substitute them for previously named ‘Doe’ defendants, the amended petition added new parties, and was not eligible for relation back); cf. State ex rel. 2020See, e.g., Schultz by Schultz v. Romanace, 906 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995) (holding that when plaintiff filed amended petition and named specific, new defendants, but did not substitute them for previously named "Doe" defendants, the amended petition added new parties, and was not eligible for relation back); cf. State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Craig v. Missouri Department of Healthgreen2 sentences2009E.D.2008) (quoting Craig v. Mo. Dept, of Health, 80 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Mo. banc 2002)). 2008In his second point, Ullrich argues the trial court erred in concluding that Ullrich’s MMPA claim, alleged for the first time in Count V of his Fourth Amended Petition, was time barred by the five-year general statute of limitation, Section 516.120, because the MMPA claim should have related back to Ullrich’s previous pleadings. 3 Under the relation-back doctrine, if a claim “asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” Crai | 2 | 2 |
Hammack v. Coffelt Land Title, Inc.green2 sentences2023Regarding the beneficiary deed, the Hammack court stated that “because a beneficiary under a beneficiary deed has no rights in the property prior to the death of the owner the property 3 (section 461.031.1, RSMo 2000), the beneficiary deed could be revoked or changed in whole or in part during the lifetime of the owner.” 348 S.W.3d at 83 (citing section 461.033.1). 2023Id. at 82-83 (discussing the relation back doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Lynchgreen1 sentence2021Standard of Review “The standard of review for a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo.” Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. banc 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Thorson v. Connellygreen1 sentence2018See generally Thorson v. Connelly , 248 S.W.3d 592 , 595 (Mo. banc 2008) (finding that the relation-back doctrine was necessary for plaintiff ad litem where petition was filed within the statute of limitations but plaintiff's request for appointment as plaintiff ad litem was not made until after the statute of limitations had run). | 1 | 1 |
Ullrich v. Cadco, Inc.green2 sentences2009Under the relation-back doctrine, if a claim “asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” Ullrich v. CADCO, Inc., 244 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Mo.App. 2009Under the relation-back doctrine, if a claim “asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” Ullrich v. CADCO, Inc., 244 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Pipes v. Seviergreen2 sentences2009Its roots are ancient[,] [dating] as far back as the Sixteenth Century.... id. at 597-98 ; see also Pipes v. Sevier, 694 S.W.2d 918, 926 (Mo.App. 2009Its roots are ancient[,] [dating] as far back as the Sixteenth Century.... id. at 597-98 ; see also Pipes v. Sevier, 694 S.W.2d 918, 926 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Forehand v. Hallgreen2 sentences2008See Forehand v. Hall, 355 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. banc 1962). 2 This Court’s analysis in Forehand of the relation-back doctrine in wrongful death suits still applies. 2008See Forehand v. Hall, 355 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. banc 1962). 2 This Court’s analysis in Forehand of the relation-back doctrine in wrongful death suits still applies. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.green1 sentence2007Johnson v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 162 S.W.3d 110, 117 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Daiprai v. Moberly Fuel & Transfer Co.green2 sentences1995The Missouri relation back doctrine has its origin in Daiprai v. Moberly Fuel & Transfer Co., 359 Mo. 789 , 223 S.W.2d 474, 476 (1949). 1995The Missouri relation back doctrine has its origin in Daiprai v. Moberly Fuel & Transfer Co., 359 Mo. 789 , 223 S.W.2d 474, 476 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Flaxman v. Flaxmangreen2 sentences1977J.). 1 As between the spouses inter sese, the effect of the law is the same whether the marriage is void or voidable, the event is treated as though it had never been. 2 Sleicher v. Sleicher, supra, l.c. 502[1-3]; Flaxman v. Flaxman, 57 N.J. 458 , 273 A.2d 567, 569 (1971); Nelson on Marriage and Annulment (2d ed. 1945) § 31.66; 4 Am.Jur.2d, Annulment of Marriage, § 93. 1977J.). 1 As between the spouses inter sese, the effect of the law is the same whether the marriage is void or voidable, the event is treated as though it had never been. 2 Sleicher v. Sleicher, supra, l.c. 502[1-3]; Flaxman v. Flaxman, 57 N.J. 458 , 273 A.2d 567, 569 (1971); Nelson on Marriage and Annulment (2d ed. 1945) § 31.66; 4 Am.Jur.2d, Annulment of Marriage, § 93. | 1 | 1 |
Sleicher v. Sleichergreen2 sentences1977This doctrine of relation back, however, operates selectively to protect innocent third parties. 4 Am.Jur.2d, Annulment of Marriage, § 93; Sleicher v. Sleicher, 251 N.Y. 366 , 167 N.E. 501, 502 [5] (1929, Cardozo, C. 1977This doctrine of relation back, however, operates selectively to protect innocent third parties. 4 Am.Jur.2d, Annulment of Marriage, § 93; Sleicher v. Sleicher, 251 N.Y. 366 , 167 N.E. 501, 502 [5] (1929, Cardozo, C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beckerman v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences2014E.D. 2000), we need not determine whether Rule 55.33(c) applies to administrative proceedings because we find even if it did apply in this case, “it would afford no relief here.” In summary, the relation-back doctrine “provides that when a claim asserted in an amended pleading ‘arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the original pleading date.” Id. (quoting Rule 55.33(c)). 2014E.D.2000), we need not determine whether Rule 55.33(c) applies to administrative proceedings because we find even if it did apply in this case, “it would afford no relief here.” In summary, the relation-back doctrine “provides that when a claim asserted in an amended pleading ‘arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the original pleading date.” Id. (quoting Rule 55.33(c)). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Donnelly v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2009Its roots are ancient[,] [dating] as far back as the Sixteenth Century.... id. at 597-98 ; see also Pipes v. Sevier, 694 S.W.2d 918, 926 (Mo.App. 2009Its roots are ancient[,] [dating] as far back as the Sixteenth Century.... id. at 597-98 ; see also Pipes v. Sevier, 694 S.W.2d 918, 926 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Jones v. Western Missouri Mental Health Center
neutral
1 sentence2000We further conclude that although Rule 55.33(c), regarding the relation-back doctrine, may apply to administrative proceedings, Jones v. Western Missouri Mental Health Center, 840 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Koenke v. Eldenburg
green
1 sentence1995Koerper, 739 S.W.2d at 706 ; Koenke, 753 S.W.2d at 932 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Koerper & Co. v. Unitel International, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Koerper, 739 S.W.2d at 706 ; Koenke, 753 S.W.2d at 932 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hawkins v. Hawkins
green
1 sentence1995The Eastern District line of cases is illustrated by the court’s holding in Hawkins v. Hawkins, 533 S.W.2d 634 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.