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.
14 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
John Middleton v. Don Ropergreen2 sentences2015Middleton, v. Roper, 759 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.2014) (Middleton II). 2015Middleton, v. Roper, 759 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.2014) (Middleton II). | 1 | 2 |
Jonathan Green v. Rick Thaler, Directorgreen2 sentences2015In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit in Green v. Thaler, 699 F.3d 404, 417, n. 10 (5th Cir.2012), noted that the Texas statute at issue in Druery codifies the Ford requirement. 2015In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit in Green v. Thaler, 699 F.3d 404, 417, n.10 (5th Cir. 2012), noted that the Texas statute at issue in Druery codifies the Ford requirement. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence2015See White, 247 S.W.3d at 563. | 1 | 1 |
Druery v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Similarly, Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523, 539 (Tex.Crim.App.2013), held that the petitioner made a substantial threshold showing of insanity and examined the interplay between the Panetti/Ford standard and the relevant Texas statute. | 1 | 1 |
BVS, Inc. v. CDW Direct, LLCgreen2 sentences2015In [Middleton II) ], issued the following day, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court had abused its discretion in granting an indefinite stay of execution, because the inmate had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a Ford claim in his federal habeas petition. 759 F.3d at 869. 2015In [Middleton II) ], issued the following day, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court had abused its discretion in granting an indefinite stay of execution, because the inmate had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a Ford claim in his federal habeas petition. 759 F.3d at 869. | 1 | 1 |
Bushong v. Garman Co.green2 sentences2011The Moores argued that Ford should have told "its customers . . . that the seat in the Explorer is dangerously susceptible to breaking and collapsing in a mild to moderate impact when holding an occupant of Ms. Moore's size and weight, or that this condition leads to a loss of restraint that can allow an occupant to strike the rear seat causing spinal cord injuries and paralysis." [3] See, e.g., Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228 , 843 S.W.2d 807, 811 (1992) ("Once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded 2011The Moores argued that Ford should have told "its customers . . . that the seat in the Explorer is dangerously susceptible to breaking and collapsing in a mild to moderate impact when holding an occupant of Ms. Moore's size and weight, or that this condition leads to a loss of restraint that can allow an occupant to strike the rear seat causing spinal cord injuries and paralysis." [3] See, e.g., Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228 , 843 S.W.2d 807, 811 (1992) ("Once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded | 1 | 1 |
Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.green2 sentences2011The Moores argued that Ford should have told "its customers . . . that the seat in the Explorer is dangerously susceptible to breaking and collapsing in a mild to moderate impact when holding an occupant of Ms. Moore's size and weight, or that this condition leads to a loss of restraint that can allow an occupant to strike the rear seat causing spinal cord injuries and paralysis." [3] See, e.g., Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228 , 843 S.W.2d 807, 811 (1992) ("Once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded 2011The Moores argued that Ford should have told "its customers . . . that the seat in the Explorer is dangerously susceptible to breaking and collapsing in a mild to moderate impact when holding an occupant of Ms. Moore's size and weight, or that this condition leads to a loss of restraint that can allow an occupant to strike the rear seat causing spinal cord injuries and paralysis." [3] See, e.g., Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228 , 843 S.W.2d 807, 811 (1992) ("Once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc.green1 sentence2011The Moores argued that Ford should have told "its customers . . . that the seat in the Explorer is dangerously susceptible to breaking and collapsing in a mild to moderate impact when holding an occupant of Ms. Moore's size and weight, or that this condition leads to a loss of restraint that can allow an occupant to strike the rear seat causing spinal cord injuries and paralysis." [3] See, e.g., Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228 , 843 S.W.2d 807, 811 (1992) ("Once a plaintiff proves the lack of an adequate warning or instruction, a presumption arises that the user would have read and heeded | 1 | 1 |
Blankenship v. Saitzgreen1 sentence2000Considering all of these matters together with the knowledge that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to be applied with caution and only upon a clear showing of inconvenience and when the ends of justice require it (Blankenship v. Saitz, 682 S.W.2d 116, 117 (Mo.App.E.D.1984)), we are compelled to the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ford’s motion on the basis of this doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Bean v. Riddlegreen1 sentence1978Eber’s testimony created an issue for the jury as to the authenticity of the exhibit (Bean v. Riddle, 423 S.W.2d 709, 718 [2, 3] (Mo.1968)), but it did not render erroneous the trial court’s ruling on Ford’s objection to the admission of the exhibit in evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1966Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New York, 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5]; Pogue v. Smallen, Mo.Sup., 285 S.W.2d 915, 917 [2]; McLaughlin v. Neiger, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 380, 384-385 [6], [7]; Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company, supra; Burke v. City of St. 1966Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New York, 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5]; Pogue v. Smallen, Mo.Sup., 285 S.W.2d 915, 917 [2]; McLaughlin v. Neiger, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 380, 384-385 [6], [7]; Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company, supra; Burke v. City of St. | 1 | 1 |
McLaughlin v. Neigergreen1 sentence1966Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New York, 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5]; Pogue v. Smallen, Mo.Sup., 285 S.W.2d 915, 917 [2]; McLaughlin v. Neiger, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 380, 384-385 [6], [7]; Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company, supra; Burke v. City of St. | 1 | 1 |
Pogue v. Smallengreen1 sentence1966Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New York, 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5]; Pogue v. Smallen, Mo.Sup., 285 S.W.2d 915, 917 [2]; McLaughlin v. Neiger, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 380, 384-385 [6], [7]; Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company, supra; Burke v. City of St. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Panetti v. Quarterman
green
2 sentences2015See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Panetti, 551 U.S. at 948 , 127 S.Ct. 2842 . 2015See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Panetti, 551 U.S. at 948 , 127 S.Ct. 2842 . | 3 | 2014–2015 |
Coonan v. Loewenthal
green
2 sentences1922And as was stated in Coonan v. Lowenthal, 147 Cal. 218 , supra, l. c. 225: ‘This equitable right of set-off existing between the parties at the time of the rendition of the judgment in favor of Coonan clmtg to that judgment, ctA%d the assignee took it subject thereto.’ ” (Italics ours). *371 The conclusion thus reached, to-wit, that the bank took the judgment assigned subject to the equitable right of set-off existing between Ford and the motor ear company, is in entire harmony with former rulings of this court to the effect that the assignee of a judgment or chose in action takes it subject t 1921And as was stated in Coonan v. Lowenthal, supra, l.c. 225: "This equitable right of set-off existing between the parties at the time of the rendition of the judgment in favor of Coonan clung to that judgment, and the assignee took it subject thereto." Therefore, we rule against appellants' contention with respect to this phase of the case. | 2 | 1921–1922 |
Skaggs Chiropractic, L.L.C. v. Ford
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wivell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
green
2 sentences2015In [Middleton v. Roper, 759 F.3d 833 (8th Cir.2014) (Middleton I),] the Eighth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by staying the inmate’s execution for the purpose of holding a hearing on a Ford claim that had not been presented in the first instance to the Missouri state courts. 759 F.3d at 835-86. 2015In [Middleton v. Roper, 759 F.3d 833 (8th Cir.2014) (Middleton I),] the Eighth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by staying the inmate’s execution for the purpose of holding a hearing on a Ford claim that had not been presented in the first instance to the Missouri state courts. 759 F.3d at 835-86. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Middleton v. Roper
neutral
2 sentences2014Middleton v. Roper, No. 14-2677, 759 F.3d 831 , 2014 WL 3512499 (July 16, 2014). 2014Middleton v. Roper, No. 14-2677, 759 F.3d 831 , 2014 WL 3512499 (July 16, 2014). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hughes v. Dwyer
neutral
1 sentence1978Rule 78.07; Chambers v. Kansas City, 446 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.1969); Hughes v. Dwyer, 546 S.W.2d 733 (Mo.App.1977); Robinson v. St. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Chambers v. City of Kansas City
green
1 sentence1978Rule 78.07; Chambers v. Kansas City, 446 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.1969); Hughes v. Dwyer, 546 S.W.2d 733 (Mo.App.1977); Robinson v. St. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company
green
1 sentence1966Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New York, 360 Mo. 1043 , 232 S.W.2d 526, 530 [4, 5]; Pogue v. Smallen, Mo.Sup., 285 S.W.2d 915, 917 [2]; McLaughlin v. Neiger, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 380, 384-385 [6], [7]; Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company, supra; Burke v. City of St. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Field v. Oliver
green
1 sentence1922Thus in Field v. Oliver, 43 Mo. 200 , where the defendant Oliver endeavored to have two notes given him by plaintiff Field, who was insolvent, set off against an amount *367 awarded to plaintiff by arbitrators, and which notes were for a greater sum than the amount awarded, it was held that the right of set off existed, the court saying, at page 203: “Where the demand sought to be set off is certain and definite, and the insolvency of the adverse party is admitted, the chancellor has jurisdiction to retain the matter and give full and final redress by decreeing a set-off or any other relief co | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Bobb v. Taylor
neutral
1 sentence1922And as was stated in Coonan v. Lowenthal, 147 Cal. 218 , supra, l. c. 225: ‘This equitable right of set-off existing between the parties at the time of the rendition of the judgment in favor of Coonan clmtg to that judgment, ctA%d the assignee took it subject thereto.’ ” (Italics ours). *371 The conclusion thus reached, to-wit, that the bank took the judgment assigned subject to the equitable right of set-off existing between Ford and the motor ear company, is in entire harmony with former rulings of this court to the effect that the assignee of a judgment or chose in action takes it subject t | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.