14 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Icon Contracting, Inc.green2 sentences2019Substantial performance is performance without a material breach, and a material breach results in performance that is not substantial.” Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Icon Contracting, Inc., 279 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (internal citation omitted). 2019Substantial performance is performance without a material breach, and a material breach results in performance that is not substantial.” Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Icon Contracting, Inc., 279 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Cookgreen2 sentences2025See Johnson, 167 S.W.3d at 263-64 (holding the partial performance exception did not apply where no definite date for performance was established with clear, cogent, unequivocal, and convincing testimony). 2025Johnson, 167 S.W.3d at 263 (citing Lederle v. Lederle, 916 S.W.2d 423, 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996)) (“Th[e] [perpetration of a fraud] exception requires the party seeking enforcement of the contract to prove, at a minimum: (1) the performance of acts which constitute cogent evidence of the existence of the contract; (2) the terms of the contract by means of clear, cogent, unequivocal and convincing testimony; and (3) such a change in the party’s position as a result of the acts done in reliance on the contract that to permit the other party to avoid enforcement of the contract would result in a g | 1 | 2 |
Lederle v. Lederlegreen1 sentence2025Johnson, 167 S.W.3d at 263 (citing Lederle v. Lederle, 916 S.W.2d 423, 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996)) (“Th[e] [perpetration of a fraud] exception requires the party seeking enforcement of the contract to prove, at a minimum: (1) the performance of acts which constitute cogent evidence of the existence of the contract; (2) the terms of the contract by means of clear, cogent, unequivocal and convincing testimony; and (3) such a change in the party’s position as a result of the acts done in reliance on the contract that to permit the other party to avoid enforcement of the contract would result in a g | 1 | 1 |
Pointer v. Wardgreen2 sentences2025To meet the partial performance exception to the statute of frauds, three elements must be met: There must be proof: (1) of the performance of acts by the proponent which are cogent evidence of the existence of the pleaded contract; (2) of the terms of the verbal contract by clear, cogent, unequivocal and convincing testimony; and (3) that the acts, referred to in the first mentioned element, were done in reliance on the contract and that, as a result of the acts, the positions of the parties were so changed that to permit the other party to rely on the statute of frauds would result in a gros 2025Id. | 1 | 1 |
Shumate v. Dugangreen1 sentence2025To meet the partial performance exception to the statute of frauds, three elements must be met: There must be proof: (1) of the performance of acts by the proponent which are cogent evidence of the existence of the pleaded contract; (2) of the terms of the verbal contract by clear, cogent, unequivocal and convincing testimony; and (3) that the acts, referred to in the first mentioned element, were done in reliance on the contract and that, as a result of the acts, the positions of the parties were so changed that to permit the other party to rely on the statute of frauds would result in a gros | 1 | 1 |
Forney v. Missouri Bridge & Concrete, Inc.green1 sentence2005“The proper measure of damages in a case where an owner breaches a construction contract by preventing the contractor from performing the work is the contract price less the amount it would have cost the contractor to perform the contract.” Forney v. Mo. Bridge & Concrete, Inc., 112 S.W.3d 471, 474 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Oberhellmann v. Oberhellmanngreen1 sentence2003Oberhellmann v. Oberhellmann, 950 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Mo. App. E.D.1997) (“only a party to a suit *755 may appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
Feigenspan v. Pencegreen2 sentences1991Specifically, in Feigenspan v. Pence, 350 Mo. 821 , 168 S.W.2d 1074, 1080 (1943), the Missouri Supreme Court allowed a remand on a specific performance claim to assess money damages instead, noting that the plaintiff “should not be deprived of all relief, for equity having become possessed of the case will not stop short of complete justice.” Id. 1991Specifically, in Feigenspan v. Pence, 350 Mo. 821 , 168 S.W.2d 1074, 1080 (1943), the Missouri Supreme Court allowed a remand on a specific performance claim to assess money damages instead, noting that the plaintiff “should not be deprived of all relief, for equity having become possessed of the case will not stop short of complete justice.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence1981Thomas v. State, 516 S.W.2d 761, 765 (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Standard Mill Work & Supply Co. v. Mississippi Steel & Iron Co.green2 sentences1978Standard Millwork & Supply Co. v. Mississippi Steel & Iron Co., 205 Miss. 96 , 38 So.2d 448, 451 (banc 1949). 1978Standard Millwork & Supply Co. v. Mississippi Steel & Iron Co., 205 Miss. 96 , 38 So.2d 448, 451 (banc 1949). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . 1996Id. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gundaker v. Templer
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 309 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Sanders v. State
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Tramell v. Adam
neutral
1 sentence1979Although it is true that payment of earnest money will suffice to “bind a contract” for the sale of goods otherwise unenforceable under the statute of frauds, the doctrine of part performance through payment of earnest money alone is inapplicable to contracts for the sale of realty, Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.1967); Swearengin v. Stafford, 188 S.W. 97 (Mo.1916); Bean v. Valle, 2 Mo. 126 (1829). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Alonzo v. Laubert
green
1 sentence1979Although it is true that payment of earnest money will suffice to “bind a contract” for the sale of goods otherwise unenforceable under the statute of frauds, the doctrine of part performance through payment of earnest money alone is inapplicable to contracts for the sale of realty, Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.1967); Swearengin v. Stafford, 188 S.W. 97 (Mo.1916); Bean v. Valle, 2 Mo. 126 (1829). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Dowdy v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1975In Dowdy v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, 384 S.W.2d 282 (Mo.App. 1964) this court held, l.c. 286[7] that a count of plaintiff’s complaint against an insurance company on a group insurance policy issued to the Welfare Association of a labor union which in turn issued certain certificates of insurance under the group policy was erroneously dismissed by a trial court for failure to state a cause of action where the plaintiff alleged the existence of the policy, that she was the beneficiary thereof, the performance or waiver of conditions precedent on her part, the death of the insured | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.