13 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Western Blue Print Co. v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2023III, LLC v. GS Hosp., LLC, 648 S.W.3d 878 , 889 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (affirming a grant of summary judgment on a breach of fiduciary duty claim where appellant did not challenge the trial court’s finding that a foreclosure sale did not violate any fiduciary duty). 2 Ms. Wood posits the Supreme Court of Missouri held “whether or not there has been a breach of the fiduciary duty is a question of fact, to be determined by a trier of fact” in Robinson v. Langenbach, 599 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. banc 2020); Sun Aviation, Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Avionics Sys., Inc., 533 S.W.3d 720 (Mo. banc 2017); and Western B 2023See Robinson, 599 S.W.3d at 179 (affirming the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for a breach of fiduciary duty claim); see also Sun Aviation, 533 S.W.3d at 726-27 (finding an appellant had no duty to disclose its parent’s consolidation plans); Roberts, 367 S.W.3d at 18 (overruling a denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict where there was no fiduciary duty). 5 So long as a party establishes it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, its fiduciary duty is no impediment. | 3 | 3 |
Scott v. Flynngreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Meyer v. Carson & Coil, 614 S.W.3d 618 , 626-27 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (beneficiaries of a will lacked “standing” to assert claim for legal malpractice against the attorney who drafted the will, since they were not in an attorney- client relationship with the defendant-attorney); Scott v. Flynn, 946 S.W.2d 248, 253 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (heirs lacked “standing” to assert a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a deceased ward’s conservator). 2009Id. | 1 | 2 |
Dibrill ex rel. Wheeler v. Normandy Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2023See Smith, 644 S.W.3d at 10; see also Dibrill, 383 S.W.3d at 86 . | 1 | 1 |
Sun Aviation, Inc. v. L-3 Communications Avionics Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2023III, LLC v. GS Hosp., LLC, 648 S.W.3d 878 , 889 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (affirming a grant of summary judgment on a breach of fiduciary duty claim where appellant did not challenge the trial court’s finding that a foreclosure sale did not violate any fiduciary duty). 2 Ms. Wood posits the Supreme Court of Missouri held “whether or not there has been a breach of the fiduciary duty is a question of fact, to be determined by a trier of fact” in Robinson v. Langenbach, 599 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. banc 2020); Sun Aviation, Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Avionics Sys., Inc., 533 S.W.3d 720 (Mo. banc 2017); and Western B 2023See Robinson, 599 S.W.3d at 179 (affirming the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for a breach of fiduciary duty claim); see also Sun Aviation, 533 S.W.3d at 726-27 (finding an appellant had no duty to disclose its parent’s consolidation plans); Roberts, 367 S.W.3d at 18 (overruling a denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict where there was no fiduciary duty). 5 So long as a party establishes it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, its fiduciary duty is no impediment. | 1 | 1 |
Joan L. Robinson v. John F. Lagenbachgreen1 sentence2023See Robinson v. Lagenbach, 439 S.W.3d 853, 859 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (“Because [appellant] has alleged no action that breaches [respondent’s] fiduciary duty as a trustee of the voting trust, we affirm the judgment[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
Klemme v. Bestgreen1 sentence2005See Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing section 516.120(4) RSMo 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Bockover v. Stemmermangreen1 sentence1996See Bockover v. Stemmerman, 708 S.W.2d 179,182 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jeffrey Henry v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023“Because breach of a fiduciary duty is constructive fraud, it is an ‘action sounding in fraud or deceit.’” Id. 13 “Pecuniary damage is, therefore, an intrinsic element of a breach of fiduciary duty claim and is essential to recovery.” Id. 2023“Because breach of a fiduciary duty is constructive fraud, it is an ‘action sounding in fraud or deceit.’” Id. 13 “Pecuniary damage is, therefore, an intrinsic element of a breach of fiduciary duty claim and is essential to recovery.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ramacciotti v. Joe Simpkins, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Plaintiff relies on language contained in Ramacciotti v. Joe Simpkins, Inc., 427 S.W.2d 425 (Mo.1968). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jones v. Grewe
green
2 sentences1998In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the Jones court noted that insurance agents have a general duty to “use reasonable care, diligence and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by the insured.” Id. at 719 . 1998The court held that “[t]he general duty of reasonable care which an insurance agent owes his client does not include the obligation to procure a policy affording the client complete liability protection_” Id. at 720 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Paisley v. Lucas
green
2 sentences1998We do not face such doubtful language in this case. [6] The Supreme Court noted that "[o]nly in such negative promises as to forbear suit or not to carry on a business or occupation is so broad an interpretation likely to be permissible." Id. (quoting 1 Williston, Contracts, Revised Edition, § 38). [7] Kemper, 284 S.W.2d at 482 ; Paisley, 143 S.W.2d at 262 ; Haith v. Model Cities Health Corp. of Kansas City, 704 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.App. 1986) [8] We identified these defendants in note 2 supra. [9] The individual defendants' appellate brief claims, in response to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, 1998We do not face such doubtful language in this case. [6] The Supreme Court noted that "[o]nly in such negative promises as to forbear suit or not to carry on a business or occupation is so broad an interpretation likely to be permissible." Id. (quoting 1 Williston, Contracts, Revised Edition, § 38). [7] Kemper, 284 S.W.2d at 482 ; Paisley, 143 S.W.2d at 262 ; Haith v. Model Cities Health Corp. of Kansas City, 704 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.App. 1986) [8] We identified these defendants in note 2 supra. [9] The individual defendants' appellate brief claims, in response to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc. v. Kemper
green
1 sentence1998We do not face such doubtful language in this case. [6] The Supreme Court noted that "[o]nly in such negative promises as to forbear suit or not to carry on a business or occupation is so broad an interpretation likely to be permissible." Id. (quoting 1 Williston, Contracts, Revised Edition, § 38). [7] Kemper, 284 S.W.2d at 482 ; Paisley, 143 S.W.2d at 262 ; Haith v. Model Cities Health Corp. of Kansas City, 704 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.App. 1986) [8] We identified these defendants in note 2 supra. [9] The individual defendants' appellate brief claims, in response to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Haith v. Model Cities Health Corp.
green
1 sentence1998We do not face such doubtful language in this case. [6] The Supreme Court noted that "[o]nly in such negative promises as to forbear suit or not to carry on a business or occupation is so broad an interpretation likely to be permissible." Id. (quoting 1 Williston, Contracts, Revised Edition, § 38). [7] Kemper, 284 S.W.2d at 482 ; Paisley, 143 S.W.2d at 262 ; Haith v. Model Cities Health Corp. of Kansas City, 704 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.App. 1986) [8] We identified these defendants in note 2 supra. [9] The individual defendants' appellate brief claims, in response to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Forinash v. Daugherty
green
1 sentence1990Forinash’s analysis is not particularly instructive for our purposes; the majority seems to think that the breach of fiduciary duty exception “carries the rule fur-ther_” Id. at 307 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.