material issue bar (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

material issue bar in Missouri

12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2017 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Vaughan v. Taft Broadcasting Co.green
mo · 1986 · cited in 5 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–2017
2 sentences

1997The evidence is circumstantial, but “the existence of only circumstantial evidence on a material issue is no bar to recovery of and by itself.” Vaughan v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 708 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Mo.banc 1986).

1997Although the evidence is purely circumstantial, “the existence of only circumstantial evidence on a material issue is no bar to recovery of and by itself.” Vaughn v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 708 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Mo. bane 1986).

55
McCarthy v. Wulffgreen
mo · 1970 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1986
2 sentences

1986McCarthy v. Wulff, 452 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Mo.1970).

1981McCarthy v. Wulff, 452 S.W.2d 164,168 (Mo.1970).

22
Birdsong v. Christiansgreen
moctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2017
2 sentences

2017Co., 708 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Mo. banc 1986). “ ‘Intent is in nearly every case proven by circumstantial evidence[.]’ ” Birdsong v. Christians, 6 S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. App. 1999) (quoting Wagner v. Uffman, 885 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. App. 1994)).

2000On account of this, the courts are more liberal in allowing the questions of the negligence of the defendant and of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff to go to the jury upon slight evidence. *139 “We observe that ‘the existence of only circumstantial evidence on a material issue is no bar to recovery of and by itself.’ ” Birdsong, 6 S.W.3d at 226 (quoting Martin v. McNeill, 957 S.W.2d 360, 363 (Mo.App.1997)).

12
Martin v. McNeillgreen
moctapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1999–2000
2 sentences

2000On account of this, the courts are more liberal in allowing the questions of the negligence of the defendant and of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff to go to the jury upon slight evidence. *139 “We observe that ‘the existence of only circumstantial evidence on a material issue is no bar to recovery of and by itself.’ ” Birdsong, 6 S.W.3d at 226 (quoting Martin v. McNeill, 957 S.W.2d 360, 363 (Mo.App.1997)).

1999We observe that “the existence of only circumstantial evidence on a material issue is no bar to recovery of and by itself.” Martin, 957 S.W.2d at 363 .

12
Wagner v. Uffmangreen
moctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Co., 708 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Mo. banc 1986). “ ‘Intent is in nearly every case proven by circumstantial evidence[.]’ ” Birdsong v. Christians, 6 S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. App. 1999) (quoting Wagner v. Uffman, 885 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. App. 1994)).

11
Strong v. American Cyanamid Co.green
moctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See Strong, 261 S.W.3d at 511 (“Generally, the fact that only circumstantial evidence is presented on a material issue is no bar to recovery.” However, “[t]he proof must be realistically tailored to the circumstances and the-existence of a defect may be inferred from circumstantial evidence with or without the aid of expert evidence.”).

11
Sanders v. Hartville Milling Co.green
moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Generally, “[t]he fact that only circumstantial evidence is presented on a material issue is no bar to recovery.” Sanders v. Hartville Milling Co., 14 S.W.3d 188, 200 (Mo.App.

2008Generally, "[t]he fact that only circumstantial evidence is presented on a material issue is no bar to recovery." Sanders v. Hartville Milling Co., 14 S.W.3d 188, 200 (Mo.App.

11
Resnik v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missourigreen
moctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002Resnik v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri, 912 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Mo.App.

2002Resnik v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri, 912 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Mo.App.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Whispering Oaks Farms, LLC v. Lebanon Livestock Auction S & T, LLC green
moctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2017Whispering Oaks Farms, LLC, 466 S.W.3d at 719 . “[T]he existence of only circumstantial evidence on a material issue is no bar to recovery of and by itself.” Vaughan v. Taft Broad.

12017–2017
Dildine v. Frichtel green
moctapp · 1994
2 sentences

1995As with any type of evidence, the circumstantial evidence must be “substantial”, Dildine, 890 S.W.2d at 685 , and it “must establish the desired inference with such certainty as to cause it to be the more reasonable and probable of the conclusions to be drawn.” Vaughan, 708 S.W.2d at 661 .

1995As *571 with any type of evidence, the circumstantial evidence must be "substantial", Dildine, 890 S.W.2d at 685 , and it "must establish the desired inference with such certainty as to cause it to be the more reasonable and probable of the conclusions to be drawn." Vaughan, 708 S.W.2d at 661 .

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

PA 14 (2006–2019) MO 12 (1981–2017) LA 9 (1994–2019) NY 3 (1998–2019) TN 2 (2010–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check