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.
9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Linwood Hotel, Inc.green2 sentences1960In discussing a similar contention advanced in a res ipsa case we have said that “A prima facie showing of negligence under that doctrine raises a substantial factual inference of defendant’s neg *94 ligence which amounts to evidence, as distinguished from a mere procedural presumption, that does not disappear upon the submission of evidence tending to exculpate defendant, but remains in the case as evidence sufficient to support an affirmative finding for plaintiff.” Clark v. Linwood Hotel, 365 Mo. 982 , 291 S.W.2d 102, 105 . 1960In discussing a similar contention advanced in a res ipsa case we have said that “A prima facie showing of negligence under that doctrine raises a substantial factual inference of defendant’s neg *94 ligence which amounts to evidence, as distinguished from a mere procedural presumption, that does not disappear upon the submission of evidence tending to exculpate defendant, but remains in the case as evidence sufficient to support an affirmative finding for plaintiff.” Clark v. Linwood Hotel, 365 Mo. 982 , 291 S.W.2d 102, 105 . | 1 | 4 |
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2025Cf. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 441 (2021) (“the risk of future harm on its own does not support Article III standing for the plaintiffs’ damages claim” (emphasis added)). 8 Howland’s allegations of injury concerned more than a mere procedural violation of a statute and—as discussed above—asserted an injury that was actual and concrete. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell ex rel. Others v. Adecco United States, Inc.green1 sentence2025See Campbell, 561 S.W.3d at 122-23 ; Courtright, 604 S.W.3d at 703-04. | 1 | 1 |
Braitberg v. Charter Communications, Inc.green1 sentence2020Braitberg v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 836 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Layton v. Palmer
green
2 sentences1958And the law of this State is also clear that if it be herein determined that the breaking of the main was an occurrence that does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use due care and the cause of the break was unknown to plaintiff, and defendant had superior knowledge of or means of information as to the cause, then such evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of negligence under the res ipsa doctrine, thereby raising "a substantial factual inference of defendant's negligence which amounts to evidence as distinguished from a mere procedural presumption, that does not disappe 1958And the law of this State is also clear that if it be herein determined that the breaking of the main was an occurrence that does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use due care and the cause of the break was unknown to plaintiff, and defendant had superior knowledge of or means of information as to the cause, then such evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of negligence under the res ipsa doctrine, thereby raising “a substantial factual inference of defendant’s negligence which amounts to evidence as distinguished from a mere procedural presumption, that does not disappe | 2 | 1958–1958 |
State v. Barton
green
2 sentences1976As said by Judge Hollingsworth in State v. Barton, 361 Mo. 780 , 236 S.W.2d 596 [1, 2] (banc 1951), and repeated in State v. Reese, 481 S.W.2d 497 , l. c. 499 (Mo. banc 1972): "This is no mere procedural presumption. 1976As said by Judge Hollingsworth in State v. Barton, 361 Mo. 780 , 236 S.W.2d 596 [1, 2] (banc 1951), and repeated in State v. Reese, 481 S.W.2d 497 , l. c. 499 (Mo. banc 1972): "This is no mere procedural presumption. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Reese
green
2 sentences1976As said by Judge Hollingsworth in State v. Barton, 361 Mo. 780 , 236 S.W.2d 596 [1, 2] (banc 1951), and repeated in State v. Reese, 481 S.W.2d 497 , l. c. 499 (Mo. banc 1972): "This is no mere procedural presumption. 1976As said by Judge Hollingsworth in State v. Barton, 361 Mo. 780 , 236 S.W.2d 596 [1, 2] (banc 1951), and repeated in State v. Reese, 481 S.W.2d 497 , l. c. 499 (Mo. banc 1972): “This is no mere procedural presumption. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Harke v. Haase
green
2 sentences1956Harke v. Haase, 335 Mo. 1104 , 75 S.W. 2d 1001, 1003 ; Turner v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. 1956Harke v. Haase, 335 Mo. 1104 , 75 S.W. 2d 1001, 1003 ; Turner v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Daily v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences1939But we also quoted other parts of the Guthrie case, including one taken from Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo. App. 415, 426 , 133 S. W. 351, 354 , which said that such presumptions “take flight upon the appearance in evidence of the facts themselves.” It will be noticed' these parts of the Guthrie opinion do not say positive evidence is required to overcome the presumption; on the contrary they declare the presumption takes flight on the appearance of the facts, thus treating it as a mere procedural presumption — as more recent cases specifically have done. [Bond v. St. 1939But we also quoted other parts of the Guthrie case, including one taken from Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo. App. 415, 426 , 133 S. W. 351, 354 , which said that such presumptions “take flight upon the appearance in evidence of the facts themselves.” It will be noticed' these parts of the Guthrie opinion do not say positive evidence is required to overcome the presumption; on the contrary they declare the presumption takes flight on the appearance of the facts, thus treating it as a mere procedural presumption — as more recent cases specifically have done. [Bond v. St. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
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.