9 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPgreen2 sentences2016Prior to the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009), defendants could raise the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law as a defense in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2011McCracken held that the exclusivity defense invoked the circuit court’s authority to act, not its subject matter jurisdiction. 298 S.W.3d at 477 . | 1 | 3 |
Flowers v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2012Martens, 195 S.W.3d at 556 (citing Flowers, 979 S.W.2d at 470 ). 2010Flowers v. Roberts, 979 S.W.2d 465, 470 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2 |
Missouri Alliance for Retired Americans v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relationsgreen2 sentences2011Based on "a simple reading of the statute itself," 277 S.W.3d at 679 , the Court explained: The definitions for "accident" and "injury" are utilized in the exclusivity clause and amendment of those definitions impacts the scope of the workers' compensation laws. 2011Based on “a simple reading of the statute itself,” 277 S.W.3d at 679 , the Court explained: The definitions for “accident” and “injury” are utilized in the exclusivity clause and amendment of those definitions impacts the scope of the workers’ compensation laws. | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Taco Bell Corp.green1 sentence2011Gunnett v. Girardier Bldg. and Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Mo.App.2002) (quoting Strickland v. Taco Bell Corp., 849 S.W.2d 127, 131-32 (Mo.App.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Gunnett v. Girardier Building & Realty Co.green1 sentence2011Gunnett v. Girardier Bldg. and Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Mo.App.2002) (quoting Strickland v. Taco Bell Corp., 849 S.W.2d 127, 131-32 (Mo.App.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martens v. White
green
1 sentence2012Martens, 195 S.W.3d at 556 (citing Flowers, 979 S.W.2d at 470 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
McCoy v. Liberty Foundry Co.
green
1 sentence1987In dismissing Count III, the trial court apparently relied on § 287.120, RSMo 1978, 1 and McCoy v. Liberty Foundry Co., 635 S.W.2d 60 (Mo.App.1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State Ex Rel. Power Process Piping, Inc. v. Dalton
green
1 sentence1985Power Process Piping, Inc. v. Dalton, 681 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App.1984) we applied the exclusivity doctrine to a contract claim by a non-lien claimant who was not a named party in the equitable proceeding. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.