14 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY INCORPORATED, Appellee, v. Ronald G. FREEMAN; Beverly Freeman Weyhmueller, Appellantsgreen2 sentences2014Freeman, 924 F.2d at 158 . 2004The test requires that the party seeking to establish waiver bear the burden of demonstrating that the alleged waiving party: “(1) had knowledge of the existing right to arbitrate; (2) acted inconsistently with that existing right; and (3) prejudiced the party opposing arbitration by such inconsistent acts.” Id.; Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. Inc. v. Freeman, 924 F.2d 157, 158 (8th Cir.1991). | 2 | 3 |
Sumners v. Sumnersgreen2 sentences2004In Sumners v. Sumners, 701 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Mo. banc 1985), the Supreme Court adopted a three-factor test to determine whether a decision changing substantive law should be given prospective-only effect. 1991In Sumners v. Sumners, 701 S.W.2d 720 (Mo. banc 1985), this Court adopted a three-factor test to determine whether an overruling decision should be given prospective-only effect. | 1 | 2 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2019See State Farm, 538 U.S. at 418 . | 1 | 1 |
Contest of the Primary Election Candidacy of Fletcher v. Fletchergreen1 sentence2014Mother, in fact, stated on the record that if she were asked to take the role of movant, she would “ask to dismiss [the motion to modify].” “The doctrine of judicial estoppel exists to prevent parties from playing fast and loose with the court.” In re Contest of Primary Election Candidacy of Fletcher, 337 S.W.3d 137, 143 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Greenpoint Credit, L.L.C. v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2006Greenpoint Credit, L.L.C. v. Reynolds , 151 S.W.3d 868, 876 (Mo.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Hortongreen1 sentence2002“To recognize such a presumption would be tantamount to treating an award of custody in a dissolution as a ‘modification’ of a prior court order entered after a full hearing on the merits.” Id. (quoting Horton v. Horton, 961 S.W.2d 67, 70-71 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Leehy v. Supreme Express & Transfer Co.green1 sentence2001In Leehy v. Supreme Exp. and Transfer Co., 646 S.W.2d 786, 790 (Mo. banc 1983), the Court cautioned that an employee is not inevitably more available to an employer, and applied a three-factor test for availability first endorsed in Hill v. Boles, 583 S.W.2d at 145 . 1 Leehy , quoting Boles , describes the significant factors in the test as follows: 1. | 1 | 1 |
Bastas v. McCurdygreen1 sentence2000Specifically, it argues that the court erred in finding the pinspotters to be fixtures because the three-factor test, as originally discussed in Bastas v. McCurdy, 266 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Mo.App.1954), when applied to the agreed upon facts, clearly establishes that the pinspotters were personal property. | 1 | 1 |
Spotts v. City of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1991Elliot v. Kesler, 799 S.W.2d 97, 102 (Mo.App.1990); see, e.g., Spotts v. City of Kansas City, 728 S.W.2d 242, 248-250 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Elliot v. Keslergreen1 sentence1991Elliot v. Kesler, 799 S.W.2d 97, 102 (Mo.App.1990); see, e.g., Spotts v. City of Kansas City, 728 S.W.2d 242, 248-250 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
red
2 sentences2004First, the decision “ ‘must establish a new principle of law ... by overruling clear past precedent.’ ” Id. (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). 2004First, the decision “ ‘must establish a new principle of law ... by overruling clear past precedent.’ ” Id. (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). | 2 | 1985–2004 |
Gado v. State
green
1 sentence2021William proposes that Missouri courts should apply the three-factor test utilized in Gado, 882 N.E.2d at 830 , which provides that, in deciding whether an interpreter is needed, the circuit court 7 should consider: (1) “the defendant's understanding of spoken and written English”; (2) “the complexity of the proceedings, issues, and testimony”; and (3) “whether, considering those factors, the defendant will be able to participate effectively in his or her defense.” The court in Gado determined, like we determined in our opinion on direct appeal, that the decision as to whether an interpreter is | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Perkins v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id.; William, 505 S.W.3d at 350 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Edmison Ex Rel. Edmison v. Clarke
green
2 sentences2002The trial court was not then required to apply an additional three-factor test under § 452.377. “[N]o presumption of a continued right to custody arises from the fact that one party has had custody during the pendency of the proceeding.” Edmison, 988 S.W.2d at 609 . 2002“To recognize such a presumption would be tantamount to treating an award of custody in a dissolution as a ‘modification’ of a prior court order entered after a full hearing on the merits.” Id. (quoting Horton v. Horton, 961 S.W.2d 67, 70-71 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hill Ex Rel. Hill v. Boles
green
1 sentence2001In Leehy v. Supreme Exp. and Transfer Co., 646 S.W.2d 786, 790 (Mo. banc 1983), the Court cautioned that an employee is not inevitably more available to an employer, and applied a three-factor test for availability first endorsed in Hill v. Boles, 583 S.W.2d at 145 . 1 Leehy , quoting Boles , describes the significant factors in the test as follows: 1. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.