11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Karpierz v. Easleygreen2 sentences2014Diehl v. O’Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Mo. banc 2003) ("If the pleadings do not contain an equitable claim, the case is not in equity.”); Russell v. Casebolt, 384 S.W.2d 548, 553 (Mo.1964) ("We find no justification in Missouri law for applying the equitable doctrine of 'unclean hands' to enforce the dismissal of an action at law for personal injuries upon the grounds stated here.”); Swisher v. Swisher, 124 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) ("The unclean hands doctrine is not available as a defense to proceedings at law, even though based on equitable principles.” (citing Karpierz v. Easley, 68 2006In considering application of that doctrine, Missouri courts have consistently recognized that “ ‘[wjhat is material is not that the plaintiff’s hands are dirty, but that he dirties them in acquiring the right he now asserts.’ ” Karpierz v. Easley, 68 S.W.3d 565, 572 (Mo.App. | 4 | 4 |
Nelson v. Emmertgreen2 sentences2024The doctrine of unclean hands "does not apply to every unconscientious act or inequitable conduct on the part of a plaintiff." Nelson v. Emmert, 105 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003). 2006Thus, the unclean hands defense “will not aid wrongdoers who attempt to use it as a shield for their own misconduct.” Nelson v. Emmert, 105 S.W.3d 563, 569 (Mo.App. | 3 | 3 |
Sangamon Associates, Ltd. v. Carpenter 1985 Family Partnership, Ltd.green2 sentences2024Among those is the doctrine of unclean hands, which "is a defense that bars one who has acted wrongfully with respect to the subject of the suit from obtaining an equitable remedy." JAS Apartments, Inc. v. Naji, 230 S.W.3d 354, 363 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (quoting Sangamon Assocs., Ltd. v. Carpenter 1985 Family P'ship, Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 141 , 20 145 (Mo. banc 2005)). 2018Considering the entirety of the circumstances, we cannot find that the doctrine of unclean hands was required to be applied as a matter of law. 4 Trial courts are afforded discretion in applying the doctrine of unclean hands, and this case does not present an occasion to find that the trial court abused that discretion, especially when the case Dr. Kim relies on for reversal provides such meager support for her argument. 5 See Sangamon , 165 S.W.3d at 145-46 ; Nelson , 105 S.W.3d at 568. | 2 | 4 |
Kay v. Vatterottgreen2 sentences2024The doctrine of unclean hands applies "only when the plaintiff's 22 improper conduct is the source, or part of the source, of his equitable claim." Kay v. Vatterott, 657 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983). 2024The doctrine of unclean hands applies "only when the plaintiff's 22 improper conduct is the source, or part of the source, of his equitable claim." Kay v. Vatterott, 657 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983). | 1 | 2 |
JAS Apartments, Inc. v. Najigreen1 sentence2024Among those is the doctrine of unclean hands, which "is a defense that bars one who has acted wrongfully with respect to the subject of the suit from obtaining an equitable remedy." JAS Apartments, Inc. v. Naji, 230 S.W.3d 354, 363 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (quoting Sangamon Assocs., Ltd. v. Carpenter 1985 Family P'ship, Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 141 , 20 145 (Mo. banc 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Pony Express Community Bank v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2024The Appellants are correct that we have previously held that "the unclean hands defense 'will not aid wrongdoers who 23 attempt to use it as a shield for their own misconduct.'" Pony Express Cmty. Bank v. Campbell, 206 S.W.3d 399, 402 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). 2024The Appellants are correct that we have previously held that "the unclean hands defense 'will not aid wrongdoers who 23 attempt to use it as a shield for their own misconduct.'" Pony Express Cmty. Bank v. Campbell, 206 S.W.3d 399, 402 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Caseboltgreen1 sentence2014Diehl v. O’Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Mo. banc 2003) ("If the pleadings do not contain an equitable claim, the case is not in equity.”); Russell v. Casebolt, 384 S.W.2d 548, 553 (Mo.1964) ("We find no justification in Missouri law for applying the equitable doctrine of 'unclean hands' to enforce the dismissal of an action at law for personal injuries upon the grounds stated here.”); Swisher v. Swisher, 124 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) ("The unclean hands doctrine is not available as a defense to proceedings at law, even though based on equitable principles.” (citing Karpierz v. Easley, 68 | 1 | 1 |
Swisher v. Swishergreen1 sentence2014Diehl v. O’Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Mo. banc 2003) ("If the pleadings do not contain an equitable claim, the case is not in equity.”); Russell v. Casebolt, 384 S.W.2d 548, 553 (Mo.1964) ("We find no justification in Missouri law for applying the equitable doctrine of 'unclean hands' to enforce the dismissal of an action at law for personal injuries upon the grounds stated here.”); Swisher v. Swisher, 124 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) ("The unclean hands doctrine is not available as a defense to proceedings at law, even though based on equitable principles.” (citing Karpierz v. Easley, 68 | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Diehl v. O'MALLEYgreen1 sentence2014Diehl v. O’Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Mo. banc 2003) ("If the pleadings do not contain an equitable claim, the case is not in equity.”); Russell v. Casebolt, 384 S.W.2d 548, 553 (Mo.1964) ("We find no justification in Missouri law for applying the equitable doctrine of 'unclean hands' to enforce the dismissal of an action at law for personal injuries upon the grounds stated here.”); Swisher v. Swisher, 124 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) ("The unclean hands doctrine is not available as a defense to proceedings at law, even though based on equitable principles.” (citing Karpierz v. Easley, 68 | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Detringgreen1 sentence2003Crawford v. Detring, 965 S.W.2d 188, 193 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Harrety v. Kontosgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Simcox, 791 S.W.2d at 443 ; McClure v. Wilson, 238 Mo.App. 824 , 185 S.W.2d 878, 883 (1945); Harrety v. Kontos, *569 238 Mo.App. 519 , 184 S.W.2d 195, 197-98 (1944); 30A C.J.S. §§ 111-113. 2003See, e.g., Simcox, 791 S.W.2d at 443 ; McClure v. Wilson, 238 Mo.App. 824 , 185 S.W.2d 878, 883 (1945); Harrety v. Kontos, *569 238 Mo.App. 519 , 184 S.W.2d 195, 197-98 (1944); 30A C.J.S. §§ 111-113. | 1 | 1 |
McClure v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Simcox, 791 S.W.2d at 443 ; McClure v. Wilson, 238 Mo.App. 824 , 185 S.W.2d 878, 883 (1945); Harrety v. Kontos, *569 238 Mo.App. 519 , 184 S.W.2d 195, 197-98 (1944); 30A C.J.S. §§ 111-113. 2003See, e.g., Simcox, 791 S.W.2d at 443 ; McClure v. Wilson, 238 Mo.App. 824 , 185 S.W.2d 878, 883 (1945); Harrety v. Kontos, *569 238 Mo.App. 519 , 184 S.W.2d 195, 197-98 (1944); 30A C.J.S. §§ 111-113. | 1 | 1 |
Osterberger v. Hites Construction Co.green1 sentence2003Price, 373 S.W.2d at 62 ; Osterberger, 599 S.W.2d at 229 [19]. | 1 | 1 |
Simcox v. Obertzgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., Simcox, 791 S.W.2d at 443 ; McClure v. Wilson, 238 Mo.App. 824 , 185 S.W.2d 878, 883 (1945); Harrety v. Kontos, *569 238 Mo.App. 519 , 184 S.W.2d 195, 197-98 (1944); 30A C.J.S. §§ 111-113. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Carron
green
2 sentences2017In a judge-tried case, the trial Court's judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantive evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. *630 Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30 , 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 2006To the extent that the Camp-bells’ brief raises an issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, this court has examined that evidence, and finds it adequate to support the judgment of the trial court. 2 Standard of Review In a bench-tried equitable action, this court’s review is governed by Mwrphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). | 2 | 2006–2017 |
Purcell v. Cape Girardeau County Commission
green
2 sentences2018The court weighed "these competing equities in favor of" Clinic and found the doctrine of unclean hands should not apply "to this separate and independent subject matter." On appeal, Dr. Kim claims reversal is required because this case "is directly analogous to" Purcell v. Cape Girardeau County Comm'n. , 322 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. banc 2010). 2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of St. Joseph v. Lake Contrary Sewer District
green
1 sentence2018Joseph v. Lake Contrary Sewer Dist. , 251 S.W.3d 362 , 369 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). "[A] plaintiff is only barred because of his conduct if that conduct is the source, or part of the source, of the equitable claim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Price v. Ridler
green
1 sentence2003Price, 373 S.W.2d at 62 ; Osterberger, 599 S.W.2d at 229 [19]. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.