opportunity to present defense (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

opportunity to present defense in Missouri

11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2008 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 (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Hamm v. Hammgreen
moctapp · 1969 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1980–1991
2 sentences

1991Our court in Hamm v. Hamm, 437 S.W.2d 449 (Mo.App.1969), succinctly describes grounds for equitable relief as follows: Equity will relieve against a judgment for extrinsic fraud, accident and mistake [citation omitted], and where a defendant is denied the occasion to present a meritorious defense by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, mischance or unavoidable circumstances unmixed with neglect or inattention, a court of equity will vacate a default judgment and give the injured party an opportunity to present his defense to the trier of the facts.

1989Hamm v. Hamm, 437 S.W.2d 449, 453 (Mo.App.1969), cited in Sprung I and upon which the majority relies, tells us that "[e]quity will relieve against a judgment for extrinsic fraud, accident and mistake [citation omitted], and where a defendant is denied the occasion to present a meritorious defense by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, mischance or unavoidable circumstances unmixed with neglect or inattention, " a court of equity will vacate a default judgment and give the injured party an opportunity to present his defense to the trier of the facts.

23
Patterson v. Fitzgibbon Discount Corp.green
moctapp · 1960 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1969–1989
2 sentences

1989(Emphasis in original.) Hamm cites Patterson v. Fitzgibbon Discount Corp., 339 S.W.2d 301, 306 (Mo. App.1960), as authority for the quoted statement without further analysis.

1989(Emphasis in original.) Hamm cites Patterson v. Fitzgibbon Discount Corp., 339 S.W.2d 301, 306 (Mo.App.1960), as authority for the quoted statement without further analysis.

22
Thompson v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Co.green
moctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008In ruling on the motion, the trial court determined that Allstate “had demonstrated that because of accident, mistake, or inadvertence, it had been denied the opportunity to present its meritorious defense.” The court relied on language from Thompson v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Co., for the test for equitable relief: “Equity will relieve against a judgment for extrinsic fraud, accident and mistake, and where a defendant is denied the occasion to present a meritorious defense by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, mischance or unavoidable circumstances unmixed with neglect or inattentio

11
Sullivan v. Director of Revenuegreen
moctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Dale v. Dir. of Revenue, 40 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Mo.App.2001); Schulte v. Dir. of Revenue, 995 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.App.1999); Sullivan v. Dir. of Revenue, 980 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo.App.1998).

11
Schulte v. Director of Revenuegreen
moctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Dale v. Dir. of Revenue, 40 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Mo.App.2001); Schulte v. Dir. of Revenue, 995 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.App.1999); Sullivan v. Dir. of Revenue, 980 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo.App.1998).

11
In the Interest of A.M.N.green
moctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Dale v. Dir. of Revenue, 40 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Mo.App.2001); Schulte v. Dir. of Revenue, 995 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.App.1999); Sullivan v. Dir. of Revenue, 980 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo.App.1998).

11
Aron v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.green
mo · 1987 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989Aron v. Director of Revenue, 737 S.W.2d 718 *450 (Mo. banc 1987), stands for the proposition that under such circumstances, the defendant should be given an opportunity to present his defense.

11
Citizens Bank of University City v. Gehlgreen
moctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980Or stated more to the point: “A judgment may be set aside on grounds of ... accident or mistake, but to succeed [plaintiff] must [allege] reasonable diligence and good grounds for failing to defend .... ” Citizens Bank of University City v. Gehl, 567 S.W.2d 423, 425 [2] (Mo.App.1978).

11
The People v. Sterlinggreen
ill · 1934 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
2 sentences

1975People v. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354 , 192 N.E. 229, 233 (1934).

1975People v. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354 , 192 N.E. 229, 233 (1934).

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
Washington v. Texas green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

11996–1996
Davis v. Alaska green
scotus · 1974
2 sentences

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

11996–1996
Chambers v. Mississippi green
scotus · 1973
2 sentences

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

11996–1996
Rock v. Arkansas green
scotus · 1987
2 sentences

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

1996He supports the argument that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense with eases based on confrontation and compulsory process guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and on due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments —Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); and Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967).

11996–1996
Luce v. Anglin green
moctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1978While in this suit to set aside the default judgment plaintiff had the burden to establish that she had a meritorious defense, Luce v. Anglin, 535 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. App.1976), that does not mean that she was to present evidence from which the merits of her claim could be conclusively determined.

11978–1978
Robinson v. Clements green
moctapp · 1966
1 sentence

1969Equity will relieve against a judgment for extrinsic fraud, accident and mistake (Robinson v. Clements, supra, 409 S.W.2d at 221 ), and where a defendant is denied the occasion to present a meritorious defense by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, mischance or unavoidable circumstances unmixed with neglect or inattention 4 a court of equity will vacate a default judgment and give the injured party an opportunity to present his defense to the trier of the facts.

11969–1969
Boeckmann v. Smith green
· 1945
2 sentences

1960Cherry v. Wertheim, supra; Boeckmann v. Smith, 238 Mo.App. 855 , 189 S.W.2d 449 .

1960Cherry v. Wertheim, supra; Boeckmann v. Smith, 238 Mo.App. 855 , 189 S.W.2d 449 .

11960–1960

Where else courts name it

CA 89 (1914–2026) NY 44 (1903–2024) PA 34 (1929–2026) MI 31 (1896–2026) TX 27 (1979–2024) IL 21 (1886–2026) LA 18 (1979–2023) NC 12 (1971–2009) OH 12 (1999–2026) MO 11 (1960–2008) NM 11 (1981–2020) TN 11 (1929–2023) VA 10 (1992–2026) MS 9 (1993–2020) FL 8 (1964–2019) WI 8 (1975–2022) KS 7 (1934–2024) MN 7 (1966–2017) WA 7 (2017–2026) IN 7 (1990–2026) OK 6 (1928–2011) MT 6 (1921–2025) CT 5 (1988–2019) CO 5 (2001–2025) NJ 5 (1963–2011) AL 5 (1978–2017) AZ 4 (1978–1998) UT 4 (2009–2020) MD 4 (1959–1999) MA 4 (1982–2006) GA 4 (1991–2020) OR 3 (1928–1994) ID 3 (1997–2023) VI 2 (1981–2000) WV 2 (1981–2019) SD 2 (1996–2010) DC 2 (1972–1995) NH 2 (2008–2010) VT 2 (1969–2006) AR 2 (2010–2017) IA 2 (1984–2016) WY 2 (1934–2025)

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