12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weigand v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2010Our Supreme Court explicitly noted “the statute applies to only modification proceedings .... ” Weigand, 296 S.W.3d at 460 (emphasis added). 2010Our Supreme Court explicitly noted "the statute applies to only modification proceedings ...." Weigand, 296 S.W.3d at 460 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Brick House Café & Pub, LLC v. Callahangreen2 sentences2008The purpose of this bond requirement is to secure “the payment of appropriate damages in the event the injunction is dissolved.” Brick House Café & Pub, L.L.C. v. Callahan, 151 S.W.3d 838, 845 (Mo.App.2004). 2008The purpose of this bond requirement is to secure "the payment of appropriate damages in the event the injunction is dissolved." Brick House Café & Pub, L.L.C. v. Callahan, 151 S.W.3d 838, 845 (Mo.App.2004). | 2 | 2 |
Goad v. Mister Softee of the Mississippi Valley, Inc.green2 sentences2008“Liability accrues on an injunction bond, and a defendant’s right of action comes into being, when the impropriety of the issuance of the injunction has been determined as a consequence of the termination of the injunction suit adversely to the party procuring the injunction.” Waterman v. Waterman, 210 S.W.2d 723 , 726 (Mo.App.1948) (citing Cohn v. Lehman, 93 Mo. 574 , 6 S.W. 267 (1887)); Goad v. Mister Softee of the Mississippi Valley, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Mo.App.1964). 2008"Liability accrues on an injunction bond, and a defendant's right of action comes into being, when the impropriety of the issuance of the injunction has been determined as a consequence of the termination of the injunction suit adversely to the party procuring the injunction." Waterman v. Waterman, 210 S.W.2d 723 , 726 (Mo.App.1948) (citing Cohn v. Lehman, 93 Mo. 574 , 6 S.W. 267 (1887)); Goad v. Mister Softee of the Mississippi Valley, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Mo.App.1964). | 2 | 2 |
PHILIP H. BERGER v. EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES, SCROLL COMPRESSORS LLC, and GEORGE SVARANOWIC, Defendants-Respondents.green1 sentence2019While there is not a “precise formula” to determine whether a party is judicially estopped, there are three considerations commonly used to guide the determination: “(1) a party’s later position was clearly inconsistent with its earlier position, (2) the party succeeded in persuading a court to accept the earlier position, and (3) the party asserting inconsistent positions would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party.” Berger v. Emerson Climate Technologies, 508 S.W.3d 136, 142-43 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (quoting Minor v. Terry, 475 S.W.3d 124, 133 (Mo. 7 P | 1 | 1 |
Betty Minor, Joseph McCary and John Michael McCary v. David W. Terry, Kathleen Schiller, Jacquelyn Highfill, and Fellows, Blake & Terry, L.L.C.green1 sentence2019While there is not a “precise formula” to determine whether a party is judicially estopped, there are three considerations commonly used to guide the determination: “(1) a party’s later position was clearly inconsistent with its earlier position, (2) the party succeeded in persuading a court to accept the earlier position, and (3) the party asserting inconsistent positions would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party.” Berger v. Emerson Climate Technologies, 508 S.W.3d 136, 142-43 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (quoting Minor v. Terry, 475 S.W.3d 124, 133 (Mo. 7 P | 1 | 1 |
Oates v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Americagreen1 sentence1981Oates v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 583 S.W.2d 713, 719 [8] (Mo.banc 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cohn v. Lehman
neutral
2 sentences2008“Liability accrues on an injunction bond, and a defendant’s right of action comes into being, when the impropriety of the issuance of the injunction has been determined as a consequence of the termination of the injunction suit adversely to the party procuring the injunction.” Waterman v. Waterman, 210 S.W.2d 723 , 726 (Mo.App.1948) (citing Cohn v. Lehman, 93 Mo. 574 , 6 S.W. 267 (1887)); Goad v. Mister Softee of the Mississippi Valley, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Mo.App.1964). 2008"Liability accrues on an injunction bond, and a defendant's right of action comes into being, when the impropriety of the issuance of the injunction has been determined as a consequence of the termination of the injunction suit adversely to the party procuring the injunction." Waterman v. Waterman, 210 S.W.2d 723 , 726 (Mo.App.1948) (citing Cohn v. Lehman, 93 Mo. 574 , 6 S.W. 267 (1887)); Goad v. Mister Softee of the Mississippi Valley, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Mo.App.1964). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Giles v. California
green
1 sentence2021Giles, 554 U.S. at 406 . 15 on Victim. 8 We recognize that the court could have been cognizant of the pending charge from the bond hearing conducted in this matter, but the trial record does not reflect the court ever considered it to determine Appellant’s intent in order to apply the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine to admit the contested testimony. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Nichols v. State
green
1 sentence2017Nichols, 131 S.W.3d at 865 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bond v. California Compensation & Fire Co.
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Grand Lodge of United Brothers of Friendship & Sisters of Mysterious Ten v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
green
2 sentences1989The language of the Court in Grand Lodge relevant to this point is as follows: “... the alleged warranties appearing in the application for the bond, but not in the bond, are not a part of the bond, unless the bond refers to the application, or to statements made therein with sufficient definiteness to make the matter refer to a part of the bond.” Id., 25 S.W.2d at 785 . 1989The language of the Court in Grand Lodge relevant to this point is as follows: “... the alleged warranties appearing in the application for the bond, but not in the bond, are not a part of the bond, unless the bond refers to the application, or to statements made therein with sufficient definiteness to make the matter refer to a part of the bond.” Id., 25 S.W.2d at 785 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Rice v. Lucas
green
1 sentence1982If the tenant desired to remain in possession while the cause was on appeal in circuit court, then the bond requirement of sec. 535.110 RSMo. 1969, would have to be met so as to stay execution.” Id. at 858 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Dixon v. Davis
green
1 sentence1978In Dixon v. Davis, 521 S.W.2d 442 (Mo.1975), this court held the bond requirement of sec. 535.110, RSMo 1969, as a prerequisite to circuit court jurisdiction of a tenant’s appeal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the constitutions of the United States and Missouri. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Lindsey v. Normet
green
2 sentences1978In Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 , 92 S.Ct. 862 , 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Oregon law which required a bond in double the rental value to be posted whenever the tenant desired to remain in possession while the cause was on appeal violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 1978In Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 , 92 S.Ct. 862 , 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Oregon law which required a bond in double the rental value to be posted whenever the tenant desired to remain in possession while the cause was on appeal violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.