15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Herbert & Brooner Construction Co. v. Goldengreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Golden, 499 S.W.2d 541, 547 (Mo. App. K.C.D. 1973) (internal citations omitted). 1989Herbert v. Brooner Construction Co. v. Golden, 499 S.W.2d 541, 547 (Mo.App.1973). | 2 | 3 |
Winn-Senter Construction Co. v. Katie Franks, Inc.green2 sentences2001Id. at 945-46 . 1995Winn-Senter Const. v. Katie Franks, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 943, 945-46 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 2 |
Rone v. Reevesgreen1 sentence2025While “Missouri courts have recognized that a writing, as required by the statute of frauds, need not be contained in a single document,” Rone v. Reeves, 20 S.W.3d 526, 529 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (internal quotations and citation omitted), the writings “must be connected by express reference to one another by clear implication established through their respective contents.” Pecos I, LLC v. Meyer, 655 S.W.3d 579 , 589 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting Mayer v. King Cola Mid-America, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Mayer v. King Cola Mid-America, Inc.green1 sentence2025While “Missouri courts have recognized that a writing, as required by the statute of frauds, need not be contained in a single document,” Rone v. Reeves, 20 S.W.3d 526, 529 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (internal quotations and citation omitted), the writings “must be connected by express reference to one another by clear implication established through their respective contents.” Pecos I, LLC v. Meyer, 655 S.W.3d 579 , 589 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting Mayer v. King Cola Mid-America, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Leeson v. Etchisongreen1 sentence2024Leeson v. Etchison, 650 S.W.2d 681, 683 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Keltner v. Sowellgreen1 sentence2007See Keltner v. Sowell, 926 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Fulton National Bank v. Callaway Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence2007See Fulton Nat’l Bank, 465 S.W.2d 549 (transferee of notes endorsed by a county hospital precluded from recovering value of notes because the county was not authorized to incur debt). d. | 1 | 1 |
Quinn v. Grahamgreen1 sentence1996If I had agreed that Lewis met the writing requirement, I would have remanded with more specific directions to the trial court. . 453 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Mo.1970) (quoting Quinn v. Graham, 428 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Mo.App.1968)) (other citations omitted). . | 1 | 1 |
Frogge v. Nyquist Plumbing and Ditching Companygreen1 sentence1996If I had agreed that Lewis met the writing requirement, I would have remanded with more specific directions to the trial court. . 453 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Mo.1970) (quoting Quinn v. Graham, 428 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Mo.App.1968)) (other citations omitted). . | 1 | 1 |
Conway v. Juddgreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., Conway v. Judd, 723 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gilmartin Bros., Inc. v. Kern
green
2 sentences2007The Gilmartin court held that the parties had waived the contract’s writing requirement by “establishing] a practice of communicating changes or additions to the contract informally.” Id. 2000Gilmartin Bros., Inc., 916 S.W.2d at 329 . | 2 | 2000–2007 |
Robinson v. Powers
green
1 sentence2003S.D.1989) to support its proposition that “when a construction contract requires a written change order, there is no right to recover for extra work without such a writing or a waiver thereof by the owner.” Id. at 680 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pelligreen v. Century Furniture & Appliance Co.
green
1 sentence2003Pelligreen, 524 S.W.2d at 171 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schumer Ex Rel. Schumer v. City of Perryville
green
1 sentence1996Schumer v. City of Perryville, 667 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. banc 1984) (holding that even though the plaintiff had been appointed a next friend, the ninety day time limit was tolled during the plaintiff's minority). . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984Sedmak v. Charlie’s Chevrolet, Inc., 622 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.