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 1950–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Royal Banks of Missouri v. Fridkingreen2 sentences2005“The parole evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence, unless an integrated contract is ambiguous.” Royal Banks of Mo. v. Fridkin, 819 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Mo. banc 1991). 2005"The parole evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence, unless an integrated contract is ambiguous." Royal Banks of Mo. v. Fridkin, 819 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Mo. banc 1991). | 2 | 2 |
Union Electric Co. v. Fundways, Ltd.green1 sentence2024Integration clauses “announce[] and demonstratef] the all inclusive-nature of the written instrument and furnish[] additional reason for applying the parole evidence rule.” Union Elec, Co. v. Fundways, Lid., 886 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
J.R. Waymire Co. v. Antares Corp.green1 sentence2016Waymire Co. v. Antares Corp., 975 S.W.2d 243, 247 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
City of Gainesville v. Gillilandgreen1 sentence2001Appellant quotes from City of Gainesville v. Gilliland, 718 S.W.2d 553, 580 (Mo.App.1986), as authority for his argument that the court should set aside the deed creating the joint tenancy, stating: The mere absence of consideration is not sufficient to cancel the deed without some additional circumstances such as fraud. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence1993Our scope of review is defined in Murphy v. Carrón, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Willis v. Community Developers, Inc.green1 sentence1987Willis v. Community Developers, Inc., 563 S.W.2d 104, 107 (Mo.App., W.D.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Union Electric Co.green1 sentence1981Modine Manufacturing Co. v. Carlock, 510 S.W.2d 462 (Mo.1974); Fisher v. Miceli, 291 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.1956) and Harris v. Union Electric Co., 622 S.W.2d 239, 247 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Commerce Trust Co. v. Wattsgreen1 sentence1950See Commerce Trust Co. v. Watts, Mo.Sup., 231 S.W.2d 817 ; and Bank of Mountain View v. Winebrenner, 355 Mo. 79 , 195 S.W.2d 486 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pickens
green
2 sentences2022“The parole evidence rule prohibits use of oral evidence to contradict or change the terms of a written, unambiguous and complete contract absent fraud, common mistake, accident or erroneous omission.” Harms v. Harms, 496 S.W.3d 534 , 540 n.9 (Mo. App. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2022“The rule prohibits evidence of contrary agreements made prior to or contemporaneously with the writing … [and] it is presumed that a written contract embodies the entire agreement of the parties[.]” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Robson v. Diem
green
1 sentence2011There, we held that although the parole evidence rule prohibits parties and those holding title in privity from a party from relying on extrinsic evidence to alter an unambiguous document, that rule does not apply to third parties challenging "the validity *275 of a seemingly unambiguous instrument.” Id. at 713-14 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Warrenton Campus Shopping Center, Inc. v. Adolphus
green
1 sentence2003“The parole evidence rule prohibits use of oral evidence to contradict or change the terms of a written, unambiguous and complete contract absent fraud, common mistake, accident or erroneous omission.” Warrenton Campus Shopping Ctr., Inc., 787 S.W.2d at 855 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fisher v. Miceli
green
1 sentence1981Modine Manufacturing Co. v. Carlock, 510 S.W.2d 462 (Mo.1974); Fisher v. Miceli, 291 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.1956) and Harris v. Union Electric Co., 622 S.W.2d 239, 247 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Modine Manufacturing Company v. Carlock
green
1 sentence1981Modine Manufacturing Co. v. Carlock, 510 S.W.2d 462 (Mo.1974); Fisher v. Miceli, 291 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.1956) and Harris v. Union Electric Co., 622 S.W.2d 239, 247 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
South Side Plumbing Co. v. Tigges
green
2 sentences1980South Side Plumbing Co. v. Tigges, 525 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.App.1975). 1980South Side Plumbing Co. v. Tigges, 525 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Insurance Co. v. Mowry
green
2 sentences1962The court also quoted from the case of Insurance Co. v. Mowry, 96 U.S. 544, 1 . c. 547, 24 L.Ed. 674 : “The understanding of the parties as to the amount of the insurance, the conditions upon which it should be payable, and the premium to be paid, was there expressed, for the very purpose of avoiding any controversy or question respecting them. 1962The court also quoted from the case of Insurance Co. v. Mowry, 96 U.S. 544, 1 . c. 547, 24 L.Ed. 674 : “The understanding of the parties as to the amount of the insurance, the conditions upon which it should be payable, and the premium to be paid, was there expressed, for the very purpose of avoiding any controversy or question respecting them. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Baker v. Keet-Rountree Dry Goods Co.
green
2 sentences1962In Baker v. Keet-Rountree Dry Goods Co., 318 Mo. 969 , 2 S.W.2d 733, 1 . c. 740, 3 S.W.2d 1003 , the court stated: “The rule that all previous negotiations are merged into the contract as finally written applies particularly to insurance contracts. 22 C.J. p. 1112.” The parole evidence rule was applied in the case of General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Co. v. Owen Bldg. 1962In Baker v. Keet-Rountree Dry Goods Co., 318 Mo. 969 , 2 S.W.2d 733, 1 . c. 740, 3 S.W.2d 1003 , the court stated: “The rule that all previous negotiations are merged into the contract as finally written applies particularly to insurance contracts. 22 C.J. p. 1112.” The parole evidence rule was applied in the case of General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Co. v. Owen Bldg. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Dickson v. Maddox
neutral
2 sentences1962But, until thus corrected, the policy must be taken as expressing the final understanding of the assured and of the insurance company.” The defendant contends that the parole evidence rule does not apply in this case because oral testimony is admissible to show that by reason of mistake the written instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, and cites Employers Indemnity Corp. v. Garrett, 327 Mo. 874 , 38 S.W.2d 1049 , and Dickson v. Maddox, 330 Mo. 51 , 48 S.W.2d 873 . 1962But, until thus corrected, the policy must be taken as expressing the final understanding of the assured and of the insurance company.” The defendant contends that the parole evidence rule does not apply in this case because oral testimony is admissible to show that by reason of mistake the written instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, and cites Employers Indemnity Corp. v. Garrett, 327 Mo. 874 , 38 S.W.2d 1049 , and Dickson v. Maddox, 330 Mo. 51 , 48 S.W.2d 873 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
General Accident & Life Insurance v. Owen Building Co.
green
2 sentences1962Co., 195 Mo. App. 371 , 192 S.W. 145 , on a set of facts almost identical with the situation in the *521 instant case. 1962Co., 195 Mo. App. 371 , 192 S.W. 145 , on a set of facts almost identical with the situation in the *521 instant case. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Employers Indemnity Corp. v. Garrett
green
2 sentences1962But, until thus corrected, the policy must be taken as expressing the final understanding of the assured and of the insurance company.” The defendant contends that the parole evidence rule does not apply in this case because oral testimony is admissible to show that by reason of mistake the written instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, and cites Employers Indemnity Corp. v. Garrett, 327 Mo. 874 , 38 S.W.2d 1049 , and Dickson v. Maddox, 330 Mo. 51 , 48 S.W.2d 873 . 1962But, until thus corrected, the policy must be taken as expressing the final understanding of the assured and of the insurance company.” The defendant contends that the parole evidence rule does not apply in this case because oral testimony is admissible to show that by reason of mistake the written instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, and cites Employers Indemnity Corp. v. Garrett, 327 Mo. 874 , 38 S.W.2d 1049 , and Dickson v. Maddox, 330 Mo. 51 , 48 S.W.2d 873 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Bank of Mountain View v. Winebrenner
neutral
2 sentences1950See Commerce Trust Co. v. Watts, Mo.Sup., 231 S.W.2d 817 ; and Bank of Mountain View v. Winebrenner, 355 Mo. 79 , 195 S.W.2d 486 . 1950See Commerce Trust Co. v. Watts, Mo.Sup., 231 S.W.2d 817 ; and Bank of Mountain View v. Winebrenner, 355 Mo. 79 , 195 S.W.2d 486 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.