12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2022 2 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 Ex Rel. Richardson v. Randallgreen2 sentences1998Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). 1998Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. St. John's Regional Medical Center v. Dallygreen1 sentence2021Ctr. v. Dally, 90 S.W.3d 209, 215 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002). 8 Relators claim Phoenix acted as a claims adjuster. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. HeplerBroom, LLC, and Glenn E. Davis, Relators v. The Honorable Joan L. Moriartygreen1 sentence2020HeplerBroom, LLC v. Moriarty, 566 S.W.3d 240, 244 (Mo. banc 2019) (holding section 508.010.10 “require[d] this Court to hold the circuit court’s failure to rule upon Relators’ motion to transfer within the ninety-day period resulted in Relators’ motion being deemed granted”). | 1 | 1 |
Barron v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.green1 sentence2019See id. at 803 (Wilson, J., concurring) (because section 508.012 requires venue be reevaluated after severance and mandates transfer if venue is no longer proper, an erroneous denial of a motion to sever is "patently prejudicial"). | 1 | 1 |
Furlong Companies v. City of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence2008III.Standard of Review A litigant seeking mandamus must “allege and prove that he has a clear, unequivocal, specific right to a thing claimed.” Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 166 (Mo. banc 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Pius v. Boydgreen1 sentence2006Id.; see also Pius v. Boyd, 857 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo.App. | 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 Ex Rel. Chassaing v. Mummert
green
2 sentences1998Relators claim they are entitled to seek a writ here because there is "no adequate remedy by appeal." Writs of prohibition will be issued in this situation only "in *296 limited situations where some `absolute irreparable harm may come to a litigant if some spirit of justifiable relief is not made available to respond to a trial court's order.'" Chassaing, 887 S.W.2d at 577 , quoting, State ex rel. 1998Relators claim they are entitled to seek a writ here because there is “no adequate remedy by appeal.” Writs of prohibition will be issued in this situation only “in limited situations where some ‘absolute irreparable harm may come to a litigant if some spirit of justifiable relief is not made available to respond to a trial court’s order.’” Chassaing, 887 S.W.2d at 577 , quoting, State ex rel. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
State Ex Rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke
green
1 sentence2022The settlement documents claimed in Relators’ privilege log were subject to the work product privilege because the settlement negotiations and release were “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Westbrooke, 151 S.W.3d at 367 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State Ex Rel. Selimanovic v. Dierker
green
1 sentence2019Selimanovic v. Dierker , 246 S.W.3d 931 , 933 (Mo. banc 2008), "first injury" in a legal malpractice action means "being subject to financial loss" for purposes of determining venue. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
red
2 sentences2003All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated. 7 .The court noted that Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 , 84 S.Ct. 1594 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964) was not to the contrary because Murphy holds that "testimony elicited in a federal proceeding under a federal grant of immunity, and the fruits therefrom, may not be used in a subsequent state prosecution” and the federal prosecutor offered the relator federal immunity for testimony to be elicited in a state proceeding. 2003All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated. 7 .The court noted that Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 , 84 S.Ct. 1594 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964) was not to the contrary because Murphy holds that "testimony elicited in a federal proceeding under a federal grant of immunity, and the fruits therefrom, may not be used in a subsequent state prosecution” and the federal prosecutor offered the relator federal immunity for testimony to be elicited in a state proceeding. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State Ex Rel. Monsanto Co. v. Public Service Commission
green
1 sentence1999Monsanto Company v. Public Service Commission, 716 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. banc 1986) as authority. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State Ex Rel. Clayton Greens Nursing Center, Inc. v. Marsh
green
1 sentence1984Clayton Greens Nursing Center, Inc. v. Marsh, 634 S.W.2d 462 (Mo. banc 1982) and State ex rel. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.