12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1878–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rowland v. Skaggs Companies, Inc.green2 sentences1998On the contrary, the principle authority relied on by this court in Steinhoff is Rowland v. Skaggs Cos., Inc., 666 S.W.2d 770, 773-74 (Mo. banc 1984). 1997Rowland v. Skaggs Cos., Inc., 666 S.W.2d 770, 773-74 (Mo. banc 1984). | 2 | 2 |
Stephenson v. McCluregreen1 sentence2013See Stephenson, 606 S.W.2d at 214 (the doctrine of contribution "does presuppose the liability of both parties to the plaintiff. | 1 | 1 |
Mid-Continent News Co. v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2013An allegation of such liability is essential to state a cause of action under the joint tortfeasor doctrine of Whitehead and Kales”); Mid-Continent News Co., 671 S.W.2d at 800 (relying on Stephenson to find that the party seeking contribution was required to admit its own liability in its third-party petition). . | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence1994Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Cincinnati Insurance
green
1 sentence2011Although the trial court reversed summary judgment in the humane society’s favor, the court did not address the merits of the claim of negligence. 610 N.W.2d at 103 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Burrell Ex Rel. Schatz v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009In Burrell, a contribution claim was defeated for failure to show a right to control, and thus a duty to protect, the plaintiff in his use of a motorized scooter. 175 S.W.3d at 656-57 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
STATE EX REL. SAFETY ROOF. SYS. v. Crawford
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. General Electric Co. v. Gaertner
green
1 sentence2000General Electric v. Gaertner, 666 S.W.2d 764 (Mo. banc 1984), which they cite for the principle that a claim for contribution is separate and apart from the underlying tort action. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Raytown
green
1 sentence1996In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Raytown, 633 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. banc 1982), the Missouri Supreme Court held that an action for contribution is a separate cause of action from the original wrongful death suit, and the liability of defendant is not predetermined: [Contribution defendants] have the right to perform discovery, and to present evidence to refute [contribution plaintiff’s] charges including all defenses which would have been available in the original action. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hayon v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New England
green
2 sentences1995In Bishop v. Klein, 380 Mass. 285 , 402 N.E.2d 1365 (1980), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, interpreting Mass.Gen.L. ch. 231B, § 4 (“§ 4”), a portion of UCATA § 4 that differs only semantically from the second portion of § 537.060, held that the statute does not apply to limit contribution where the parties settled after judgment: [T]o apply the contribution bar of § 4(b) to a settlement reached after judgment has been entered contradicts the general purpose of the statute as recognized in Hayon v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New England, 375 Mass. 644 , 378 N.E.2d 442 [, 445[2] (19 1995In Bishop v. Klein, 380 Mass. 285 , 402 N.E.2d 1365 (1980), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, interpreting Mass.Gen.L. ch. 231B, § 4 (“§ 4”), a portion of UCATA § 4 that differs only semantically from the second portion of § 537.060, held that the statute does not apply to limit contribution where the parties settled after judgment: [T]o apply the contribution bar of § 4(b) to a settlement reached after judgment has been entered contradicts the general purpose of the statute as recognized in Hayon v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New England, 375 Mass. 644 , 378 N.E.2d 442 [, 445[2] (19 | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bishop v. KLEIN FULLER
green
2 sentences1995In Bishop v. Klein, 380 Mass. 285 , 402 N.E.2d 1365 (1980), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, interpreting Mass.Gen.L. ch. 231B, § 4 (“§ 4”), a portion of UCATA § 4 that differs only semantically from the second portion of § 537.060, held that the statute does not apply to limit contribution where the parties settled after judgment: [T]o apply the contribution bar of § 4(b) to a settlement reached after judgment has been entered contradicts the general purpose of the statute as recognized in Hayon v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New England, 375 Mass. 644 , 378 N.E.2d 442 [, 445[2] (19 1995In Bishop v. Klein, 380 Mass. 285 , 402 N.E.2d 1365 (1980), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, interpreting Mass.Gen.L. ch. 231B, § 4 (“§ 4”), a portion of UCATA § 4 that differs only semantically from the second portion of § 537.060, held that the statute does not apply to limit contribution where the parties settled after judgment: [T]o apply the contribution bar of § 4(b) to a settlement reached after judgment has been entered contradicts the general purpose of the statute as recognized in Hayon v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New England, 375 Mass. 644 , 378 N.E.2d 442 [, 445[2] (19 | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Fane v. Hootman
neutral
2 sentences1980The circumstances of this case are to be distinguished from those in Fane v. Hootman, 254 Iowa 241 , 117 N.W.2d 435 (1962) on which the appellant relies. 1980The circumstances of this case are to be distinguished from those in Fane v. Hootman, 254 Iowa 241 , 117 N.W.2d 435 (1962) on which the appellant relies. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Morrison v. Poyntz
neutral
1 sentence1878Courts of law have long since adopted the doctrine of contribution, and now allow actions of assumpsit or indebitatus assumpsit to be maintained by one co-surety or co-debtor, for any excess of the common indebtedness which he may have discharged over his proportionate share. 3 Denio., supra; Kemp v. Finden, 12 Mees. & Welsb. 421; Morrison v. Poyntz, 7 Dana 307 ; Bachelder v. Fiske, 17 Mass. 464 ; Mason v. Lord, 20 Pick. 447 ; Fell’s Law of Guaranty and Suretyship, 297. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.