13 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1985State v. Richardson, 674 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Mo.App.1984) quoting State v. Harris, 564 S.W.2d 561, 573 (Mo.App.1978). 1984Although a deviation from the MAI is presumptively prejudicial, State v. Graves, 588 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1979), “not every deviation from an approved instruction ... requires reversal and although deviation should be discouraged in all cases, even when a deviation is error the question whether it is prejudicial error remains to be judicially determined.” State v. Harris, 564 S.W.2d 561, 573 (Mo.App.1978). | 2 | 2 |
Klaus v. Deengreen1 sentence2019Cf Klaus v. Deen, 883 S.W.2d 904, 905-08 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994) (en banc) (finding that even where it was not pleaded that doctor was negligent for failing to order a CT scan, evidence was admissible of such failure—and that it was negligent—because it was “relevant to an issue before the jury,” namely whether doctor failed to meet the standard of care in a related manner). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Campbellgreen1 sentence1994Husband cites Lyles v. Lyles, 710 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Mo.App.E.D.1986), and Campbell v. Campbell, 825 S.W.2d 319, 323 (Mo.App.W.D.1992), in support. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Lyles v. Lylesgreen1 sentence1994Husband cites Lyles v. Lyles, 710 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Mo.App.E.D.1986), and Campbell v. Campbell, 825 S.W.2d 319, 323 (Mo.App.W.D.1992), in support. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richardsongreen1 sentence1985State v. Richardson, 674 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Mo.App.1984) quoting State v. Harris, 564 S.W.2d 561, 573 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Huntgreen1 sentence1981In 1979, it was again stated that Missouri follows the “minor deviation rule” and in the decision of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979), the court, in citing Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1967) and Savage v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 158 Me. 259 , 182 A.2d 669 (1962) implied that the minor deviation rule should be applied in business or nonbusiness relationships. | 1 | 1 |
Weathers v. Royal Indemnity Co.green1 sentence1981See Weathers, supra. In furthering their argument, appellants contend that if the minor deviation rule is the law in our state, then the trial court should have ruled that Strine’s deviation was minor as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1981In 1979, it was again stated that Missouri follows the “minor deviation rule” and in the decision of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979), the court, in citing Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1967) and Savage v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 158 Me. 259 , 182 A.2d 669 (1962) implied that the minor deviation rule should be applied in business or nonbusiness relationships. 1981The two authorities cited in Truck Insurance Exchange were social situations and reasoned that “proof of friendly relations, which might otherwise imply permission, cannot overcome the effect of a limitation as to time, purpose or locality expressly imposed by the owner upon the bailee at the time of the delivery of the automobile to the bailee by the owner on the occasion in question.” (emphasis added) Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 158 S.E.2d at 7 . *443 It should be noted that Track Insurance Exchange is found not to be controlling herein upon its own facts because it dealt wi | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Eagletongreen1 sentence1978See Reed v. Eagleton, 384 S.W.2d 578, 585 (Mo.1964). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Billingsleygreen1 sentence1978Rule 20.02(e); State v. Billingsley, 534 S.W.2d 484, 485 [2] (Mo.App.1975); State v. Vernor, 522 S.W.2d 312, 316 [6] (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vernorgreen1 sentence1978Rule 20.02(e); State v. Billingsley, 534 S.W.2d 484, 485 [2] (Mo.App.1975); State v. Vernor, 522 S.W.2d 312, 316 [6] (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Spratt v. Earlygreen1 sentence1907See, for example, Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491 ; Donnell v. Wright, 199 Mo. 304 ; Edgell v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 583 ; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 30 ; Nave v. Adams, 107 Mo. 414 ; Young v. Byrd, 124 Mo. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Branch, 134 Mo. l. c. 604; Wiggin v. 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Graves
green
2 sentences1985Although a deviation from the MAI is presumptively prejudicial, State v. Graves, 588 S.W.2d 495 (Mo.1979) (en banc), not every deviation from an approved instruction ... requires reversal and although deviation should be discouraged in all cases, even when a deviation is error the question whether it is prejudicial error remains to be judicially determined. 1984Although a deviation from the MAI is presumptively prejudicial, State v. Graves, 588 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1979), “not every deviation from an approved instruction ... requires reversal and although deviation should be discouraged in all cases, even when a deviation is error the question whether it is prejudicial error remains to be judicially determined.” State v. Harris, 564 S.W.2d 561, 573 (Mo.App.1978). | 2 | 1984–1985 |
McKee Ex Rel. Burton v. Travelers Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1979McKee v. Travelers Insurance Company, 315 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.App.1958); Annot. 5 A.L.R.2d 600 . 1961A third rule is the minor deviation rule, wherein it is held that if the use of the vehicle by the employee is not a gross violation of the permission granted, protection is still afforded under the policy. 5 A.L.R.2d 624 -626 ; 7 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, §§ 4366-4368, pp. 169-185, and cases therein cited; McKee v. Travelers Insurance Co., Mo.App., 315 S.W.2d 852, 855 . | 2 | 1961–1979 |
In Re Coleman
green
1 sentence2019When an attorney has committed multiple acts of misconduct, "the ultimate sanction imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious instance of misconduct among the violations." In re Coleman, 295 S.W.3d 857 , 870 (Mo. banc 2009) . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Goff v. St. Luke's Hospital of Kansas City
green
1 sentence1989Goff v. St Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, 753 S.W.2d at 565 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence1981In 1979, it was again stated that Missouri follows the “minor deviation rule” and in the decision of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979), the court, in citing Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1967) and Savage v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 158 Me. 259 , 182 A.2d 669 (1962) implied that the minor deviation rule should be applied in business or nonbusiness relationships. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Savage v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1981In 1979, it was again stated that Missouri follows the “minor deviation rule” and in the decision of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979), the court, in citing Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1967) and Savage v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 158 Me. 259 , 182 A.2d 669 (1962) implied that the minor deviation rule should be applied in business or nonbusiness relationships. 1981In 1979, it was again stated that Missouri follows the “minor deviation rule” and in the decision of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Hunt, 590 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo.App.1979), the court, in citing Wilson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 272 N.C. 183 , 158 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1967) and Savage v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 158 Me. 259 , 182 A.2d 669 (1962) implied that the minor deviation rule should be applied in business or nonbusiness relationships. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel
green
1 sentence1979Speidel v. Kellum, 340 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1960); Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216 (W.D.Mo.1962). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Speidel v. Kellum
green
1 sentence1979Speidel v. Kellum, 340 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1960); Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Noel, 211 F.Supp. 216 (W.D.Mo.1962). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Rainwater v. Wallace
green
2 sentences1958While not precisely in point on all of the facts, there is language in Rainwater v. Wallace, Mo.App., 169 S.W.2d 450 , affirmed *857 351 Mo. 1044 , 174 S.W.2d 835 , indicating that our courts may lean to the minor deviation rule as regards the interpretation of the omnibus clause, for it was there said (169 S.W.2d loc. cit. 456): “It is the well established rule in this state, that a servant does not step without the scope of his employment, as a matter of law, by joining some private business of his own with that of his master’s, except where he makes a marked deviation from his master’s busi 1958While not precisely in point on all of the facts, there is language in Rainwater v. Wallace, Mo.App., 169 S.W.2d 450 , affirmed *857 351 Mo. 1044 , 174 S.W.2d 835 , indicating that our courts may lean to the minor deviation rule as regards the interpretation of the omnibus clause, for it was there said (169 S.W.2d loc. cit. 456): “It is the well established rule in this state, that a servant does not step without the scope of his employment, as a matter of law, by joining some private business of his own with that of his master’s, except where he makes a marked deviation from his master’s busi | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Edgell v. Sigerson
neutral
1 sentence1907See, for example, Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491 ; Donnell v. Wright, 199 Mo. 304 ; Edgell v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 583 ; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 30 ; Nave v. Adams, 107 Mo. 414 ; Young v. Byrd, 124 Mo. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Branch, 134 Mo. l. c. 604; Wiggin v. St. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Nave v. Adams
neutral
1 sentence1907See, for example, Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491 ; Donnell v. Wright, 199 Mo. 304 ; Edgell v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 583 ; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 30 ; Nave v. Adams, 107 Mo. 414 ; Young v. Byrd, 124 Mo. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Branch, 134 Mo. l. c. 604; Wiggin v. St. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Young v. Byrd
green
1 sentence1907See, for example, Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491 ; Donnell v. Wright, 199 Mo. 304 ; Edgell v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 583 ; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 30 ; Nave v. Adams, 107 Mo. 414 ; Young v. Byrd, 124 Mo. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Branch, 134 Mo. l. c. 604; Wiggin v. St. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
State ex rel. Wine v. Keokuk & Western Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1907See, for example, Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491 ; Donnell v. Wright, 199 Mo. 304 ; Edgell v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 583 ; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 30 ; Nave v. Adams, 107 Mo. 414 ; Young v. Byrd, 124 Mo. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Branch, 134 Mo. l. c. 604; Wiggin v. St. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Donnell v. Wright
green
1 sentence1907See, for example, Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491 ; Donnell v. Wright, 199 Mo. 304 ; Edgell v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 583 ; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 30 ; Nave v. Adams, 107 Mo. 414 ; Young v. Byrd, 124 Mo. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Branch, 134 Mo. l. c. 604; Wiggin v. St. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.