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 1874–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gill Construction, Inc. v. 18th & Vine Authoritygreen2 sentences2016Thus, a contract which fails to satisfy any one of the mandatory requirements described in section 432.070 is “outside the object of its creation ... and therefore beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Legislature,” and “is not voidable only, but wholly void, and of no legal effect.” Id. at 166 (quoting Donovan, 175 S.W.2d at 879 ); see also Gill Constr., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Auth., 157 S.W.3d 699, 708 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (holding that a contract made in violation of section 432.070 is void rather than voidable). 2007Gill Construction, Inc. v. 18th & Vine Authority, 157 S.W.3d 699, 710 (Mo.App. | 3 | 3 |
City of Fenton v. Executive International Inn, Inc.green2 sentences2005A contract made in violation of the statute is “void rather than voidable.” City of Fenton v. Executive Int’l Inn, Inc., 740 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Mo.App. 1990City of Fenton v. Executive International Inn, Inc., 740 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Mo.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hayesgreen1 sentence2017See Moynihan, 265 S.W.3d at 354 ; Thies v. St. | 1 | 1 |
Orf Construction, Inc. v. Black Jack Fire Protection Districtgreen1 sentence2008The requirements of section 432.070 are mandatory, not discretionary, and a contract made in violation of section 432.070 is void, rather than voidable, ORF Construction, Inc. v. Black Jack Fire Protection District, 239 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Missouri International Investigators, Inc. v. City of Pacificgreen1 sentence2005E.D.1987). “ ‘The fact that a municipality has received the benefit of a performance by the other party does not make the municipality liable either on the theory of ratification, estoppel or implied contract.’ ” Mo. Int’l Investigators, Inc. v. City of Pacific, 545 S.W.2d 684, 685 (Mo. *709 App.1976) (quoting Kansas City v. Rathford, 353 Mo. 1130 , 186 S.W.2d 570, 574 (1945)). | 1 | 1 |
Kansas City v. Rathfordgreen2 sentences2005E.D.1987). “ ‘The fact that a municipality has received the benefit of a performance by the other party does not make the municipality liable either on the theory of ratification, estoppel or implied contract.’ ” Mo. Int’l Investigators, Inc. v. City of Pacific, 545 S.W.2d 684, 685 (Mo. *709 App.1976) (quoting Kansas City v. Rathford, 353 Mo. 1130 , 186 S.W.2d 570, 574 (1945)). 2005E.D.1987). “ ‘The fact that a municipality has received the benefit of a performance by the other party does not make the municipality liable either on the theory of ratification, estoppel or implied contract.’ ” Mo. Int’l Investigators, Inc. v. City of Pacific, 545 S.W.2d 684, 685 (Mo. *709 App.1976) (quoting Kansas City v. Rathford, 353 Mo. 1130 , 186 S.W.2d 570, 574 (1945)). | 1 | 1 |
Bride v. City of Slatergreen1 sentence1987See, Bride v. City of Slater, 263 S.W.2d 22, 26-28 (Mo.1953); City of Warrensburg, Mo. v. RCA Corp., 571 F.Supp. 743, 758-59 (W.D.Mo.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Needles v. Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1987Needles v. Kansas City, 371 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Mo.1963), and, as we understand the provisions, a contract made in violation of them is void rather than voidable. | 1 | 1 |
City of Warrensburg, Mo. v. RCA Corp.green1 sentence1987See, Bride v. City of Slater, 263 S.W.2d 22, 26-28 (Mo.1953); City of Warrensburg, Mo. v. RCA Corp., 571 F.Supp. 743, 758-59 (W.D.Mo.1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penn v. Bornman
green
2 sentences1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig 1905In Miller v. Amon, 145 U. S. 421 , it is said: “The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when plaintiff cannot establish his cause of action without relying upon an illelegal contract, he cannot recover.” In Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 , the court said: “All contracts made in violation of an express statutory provision are inoperative and void, and no recovery can be had upon them.” The same doctrine is announced in Ohio, etc., Trust Co. v. Ins. & Trust Co., 53 Am. | 2 | 1905–1908 |
Miller v. Ammon
green
2 sentences1905In Miller v. Amon, 145 U. S. 421 , it is said: “The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when plaintiff cannot establish his cause of action without relying upon an illelegal contract, he cannot recover.” In Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 , the court said: “All contracts made in violation of an express statutory provision are inoperative and void, and no recovery can be had upon them.” The same doctrine is announced in Ohio, etc., Trust Co. v. Ins. & Trust Co., 53 Am. 1899“A contract made in violation of a statute is void, unless the whole statute discloses an intention that it shall not be so.” Miller v. Ammon, 145 U. S. 421 . | 2 | 1899–1905 |
Donovan v. Kansas City
green
1 sentence2016Thus, a contract which fails to satisfy any one of the mandatory requirements described in section 432.070 is “outside the object of its creation ... and therefore beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Legislature,” and “is not voidable only, but wholly void, and of no legal effect.” Id. at 166 (quoting Donovan, 175 S.W.2d at 879 ); see also Gill Constr., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Auth., 157 S.W.3d 699, 708 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (holding that a contract made in violation of section 432.070 is void rather than voidable). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
St. Charles County v. \A Joint Board or Commission\""
green
1 sentence2016Thus, a contract which fails to satisfy any one of the mandatory requirements described in section 432.070 is “outside the object of its creation ... and therefore beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Legislature,” and “is not voidable only, but wholly void, and of no legal effect.” Id. at 166 (quoting Donovan, 175 S.W.2d at 879 ); see also Gill Constr., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Auth., 157 S.W.3d 699, 708 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (holding that a contract made in violation of section 432.070 is void rather than voidable). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ehrhardt v. Robertson Bros.
green
1 sentence1928The plaintiff sues as assignee of the tax bill, but his right to maintain this suit is not superior to the right which the contracting corporation *Page 1057 would have had in a suit brought upon the tax bill. [Ehrhardt v. Robertson Bros., 78 Mo. App. 404 ; Chicago Mill Assignee . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose
green
1 sentence1925The plaintiff in our case admittedly was without the qualifications of a physician.” In United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 508 , this court, in considering the principle that the party is not entitled to recover on a contract made in violation of a statute, said (l. c. 532): “That rule never applies except in those cases where the maintenance of the suit would necessarily result in the courts giving effect to the void contract, or where the contract is tainted with fraud and immorality.” And further (l. c. 537) after citing cases: “From these cases it will be seen that this court ha | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Tri-State Amusement Co. v. Forest Park Highlands Amusement Co.
green
1 sentence1924Judge SHERWOOD, in disposing of the case, on pages 247-8, said: "The law will not stultify itself by promoting on the one hand what it prohibits on the other, and will for this reason leave the parties to this suit where it finds them, unsanctioned by its favor and unaided by its process." In Tri-State Amusement Co. v. Amusement Co., 192 Mo. 404 , the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, which had not paid the incorporation tax required by the statute, nor been licensed to do business in Missouri, brought suit on a contract made in violation of the above law, and sought to avoid the legal effect | 1 | 1924–1924 |
President of the Bank of the United States v. Owens
green
1 sentence1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Harris v. Runnels
green
1 sentence1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Alexander v. O'Donnell
neutral
1 sentence1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Pangborn v. Westlake
green
1 sentence1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Gunter v. Leckey
green
1 sentence1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Kennedy v. Cochrane
neutral
1 sentence1908“The general rule of law is, that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; and that when a plaintiff cannot establish Ms cause of action without relying upon an illegal contract, he cannot recover. [Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, pp. 253, 260; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523 ; Alexander v. O’Donnell, 12 Kan. 608 ; Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591 ; Kennedy v. Cochrane, 65 Me. 594 ; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539 ; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549 ; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84 .] In Bank of United States v. Owens, this court said: ‘There can be no civil rig | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Sprague v. Rooney
neutral
1 sentence1902Sprague v. Rooney, 104 Mo. 349 . | 1 | 1902–1902 |
City of Lowell v. Wentworth
neutral
1 sentence1874Wentworth, 6 Cush., 221 , a sidewalk was built in conformity to ordinance, and in further conformity thereto, the auditor was required to give immediate “notice in writing to such person who shall have been reported to him as liable to be assessed, of his intention to make an assessment, ten days at least before making the same; appointing in said notice, a time and place at which all persons interested may appear, and be heard in relation to such assessment.” This notice was given to the proprietors of the adjoining property, but not in the way prescribed, and the court held that the giving o | 1 | 1874–1874 |
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.