Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brassfield v. Searsgreen2 sentences1985Plaintiff cites Brassfield v. Sears, 421 S.W.2d 321 (Mo.1967) in support of her contention. 1973This instruction directed a verdict for defendant if the jury believed that plaintiff was negligent in “suddenly slow[ing] his automobile on the highway without first *227 giving an adequate and timely warning of his intention to slow.” It is true that negligence may be predicated upon such conduct [Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724, 726 (2) (Mo.1958); Lafferty v. Wattle, 349 S.W.2d 519, 528-529 (19) (Mo.App.1961)—see Crawford v. McNece, 388 S.W.2d 809, 813 (1) (Mo.1965)], but it is equally true that an issue submitted to a jury must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jur | 1 | 3 |
Wilkerson v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2012Id. at 533 (emphasis added). 2009Driver # 3 sued Driver # 1 for negligence, asserting that Driver # 1 “negligently operated his vehicle by failing to keep a careful lookout and by suddenly and unexpectedly stopping his vehicle in the road without given an adequate and timely warning.” Id. at 532 . | 1 | 2 |
Tucker v. Blankenmeiergreen2 sentences1973"In Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724 [2, 3] (Mo.1958), the court stated: `The sudden and abrupt stopping or slowing of an automobile is not, under all circumstances, evidence of negligence. 1973This instruction directed a verdict for defendant if the jury believed that plaintiff was negligent in “suddenly slow[ing] his automobile on the highway without first *227 giving an adequate and timely warning of his intention to slow.” It is true that negligence may be predicated upon such conduct [Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724, 726 (2) (Mo.1958); Lafferty v. Wattle, 349 S.W.2d 519, 528-529 (19) (Mo.App.1961)—see Crawford v. McNece, 388 S.W.2d 809, 813 (1) (Mo.1965)], but it is equally true that an issue submitted to a jury must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jur | 1 | 2 |
Griffin v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.green1 sentence2012Co., 965 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo.App.1998) (internal footnote omitted); see § 389.990, RSMo. 2000. | 1 | 1 |
Thienes v. Harlin Fruit Companygreen1 sentence2009S.D.2004) (citing Thienes v. Harlin Fruit Co., 499 S.W.2d 223, 226-27 (Mo.App.1973)). 2 *63 The circuit court held that the fact that Kasper admitted to briefly glancing away from Welhoff s truck established, as a matter of law, that Kasper could not state a claim based on Welhoff s alleged failure to provide an adequate and timely warning. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. St. John's Medical Center, Joplingreen2 sentences1979John’s Medical Center, Joplin, 508 S.W.2d 7, 11 [3] (Mo.App.1974)], Frisco tacitly cedes it would have been proper to give the instruction had the issue been solely confined to whether Frisco did or did not give an adequate and timely warning by bell or whistle. 1979John’s Medical Center, Joplin, 508 S.W.2d 7, 11 [3] (Mo.App.1974)], Frisco tacitly cedes it would have been proper to give the instruction had the issue been solely confined to whether Frisco did or did not give an adequate and timely warning by bell or whistle. | 1 | 1 |
Cupples Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commissiongreen1 sentence1973Cuppies Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (14) (Mo.1959); Collins v. Division of Welfare, 364 Mo. 1032, 1037 , 270 S.W.2d 817, 820 (6) (banc 1954); Haley v. Moore, 419 S.W.2d 512, 516-517 (Mo.App.1967). | 1 | 1 |
Gathright v. Pendegraftgreen1 sentence1973This instruction directed a verdict for defendant if the jury believed that plaintiff was negligent in “suddenly slow[ing] his automobile on the highway without first *227 giving an adequate and timely warning of his intention to slow.” It is true that negligence may be predicated upon such conduct [Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724, 726 (2) (Mo.1958); Lafferty v. Wattle, 349 S.W.2d 519, 528-529 (19) (Mo.App.1961)—see Crawford v. McNece, 388 S.W.2d 809, 813 (1) (Mo.1965)], but it is equally true that an issue submitted to a jury must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jur | 1 | 1 |
Haley v. Mooregreen1 sentence1973Cuppies Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (14) (Mo.1959); Collins v. Division of Welfare, 364 Mo. 1032, 1037 , 270 S.W.2d 817, 820 (6) (banc 1954); Haley v. Moore, 419 S.W.2d 512, 516-517 (Mo.App.1967). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. McNecegreen1 sentence1973This instruction directed a verdict for defendant if the jury believed that plaintiff was negligent in “suddenly slow[ing] his automobile on the highway without first *227 giving an adequate and timely warning of his intention to slow.” It is true that negligence may be predicated upon such conduct [Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724, 726 (2) (Mo.1958); Lafferty v. Wattle, 349 S.W.2d 519, 528-529 (19) (Mo.App.1961)—see Crawford v. McNece, 388 S.W.2d 809, 813 (1) (Mo.1965)], but it is equally true that an issue submitted to a jury must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jur | 1 | 1 |
Bridgeforth v. Proffittgreen1 sentence1973This instruction directed a verdict for defendant if the jury believed that plaintiff was negligent in “suddenly slow[ing] his automobile on the highway without first *227 giving an adequate and timely warning of his intention to slow.” It is true that negligence may be predicated upon such conduct [Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724, 726 (2) (Mo.1958); Lafferty v. Wattle, 349 S.W.2d 519, 528-529 (19) (Mo.App.1961)—see Crawford v. McNece, 388 S.W.2d 809, 813 (1) (Mo.1965)], but it is equally true that an issue submitted to a jury must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jur | 1 | 1 |
Lafferty v. Wattlegreen1 sentence1973This instruction directed a verdict for defendant if the jury believed that plaintiff was negligent in “suddenly slow[ing] his automobile on the highway without first *227 giving an adequate and timely warning of his intention to slow.” It is true that negligence may be predicated upon such conduct [Tucker v. Blankenmeier, 315 S.W.2d 724, 726 (2) (Mo.1958); Lafferty v. Wattle, 349 S.W.2d 519, 528-529 (19) (Mo.App.1961)—see Crawford v. McNece, 388 S.W.2d 809, 813 (1) (Mo.1965)], but it is equally true that an issue submitted to a jury must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jur | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Division of Welfaregreen2 sentences1973Cuppies Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (14) (Mo.1959); Collins v. Division of Welfare, 364 Mo. 1032, 1037 , 270 S.W.2d 817, 820 (6) (banc 1954); Haley v. Moore, 419 S.W.2d 512, 516-517 (Mo.App.1967). 1973Cuppies Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (14) (Mo.1959); Collins v. Division of Welfare, 364 Mo. 1032, 1037 , 270 S.W.2d 817, 820 (6) (banc 1954); Haley v. Moore, 419 S.W.2d 512, 516-517 (Mo.App.1967). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Vestalgreen1 sentence1967Sears’ testimony (by which he is bound if not explained or corrected, Taylor v. Vestal, Mo., 304 S.W.2d 820, 823 [1,2]) is that as he came over the top of the hill he saw Brassfield’s Cadillac ahead. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hawthorne v. Hills
green
1 sentence2009However, in Hawthorne v. Hills, 861 S.W.2d 337 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hewitt ex rel. Hewitt v. Masters
green
1 sentence1981Although the decedent was only sixteen years old at the time of the occurrence, he is held to the “highest degree of care” standard imposed on all motor vehicle operators. § 304.010, RSMo 1978; Hewitt v. Masters, 386 S.W.2d 9 (Mo.1964). *523 Defendant Hodgeson submitted the issue of decedent’s contributory negligence by Instruction Number 10 as follows: Your verdict must be for the Defendant, Penneye Hodgeson on Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against her if you believe: First, either: Chris Ensor failed to keep a careful lookout, or Chris Ensor stopped his motorcycle in a lane reserved for movi | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Manley v. Horton
green
1 sentence1972Manley v. Horton, Mo., 414 S.W.2d 254 ; White v. Rohrer, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 31 [1], We shall relate the evidence herein consistent with this mandate. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
White v. Rohrer
green
1 sentence1972Manley v. Horton, Mo., 414 S.W.2d 254 ; White v. Rohrer, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 31 [1], We shall relate the evidence herein consistent with this mandate. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.