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 1897–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riche v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2001See also Wallace v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 786 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Mo.App.1990) (overruled on other grounds by Riche v. Director of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331, 335-36 (Mo. banc 1999)); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
American Polled Hereford Ass'n v. City of Kansas Citygreen2 sentences2001American Polled Hereford v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). . 2001While offensive use of the doctrine may be a less favored approach, this does not excuse the satisfaction of this requirement by those parties employing the doctrine defensively. [2] American Polled Hereford v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). [3] Pruiett v. Wilform, 477 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Mo. 1972); Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Mo.1970); Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188, 189-90 (Mo.1967); Howard v. Riley, 409 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Mo.1966). | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2001See also Wallace v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 786 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Mo.App.1990) (overruled on other grounds by Riche v. Director of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331, 335-36 (Mo. banc 1999)); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Pruiett v. Wilformgreen1 sentence2001While offensive use of the doctrine may be a less favored approach, this does not excuse the satisfaction of this requirement by those parties employing the doctrine defensively. [2] American Polled Hereford v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). [3] Pruiett v. Wilform, 477 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Mo. 1972); Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Mo.1970); Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188, 189-90 (Mo.1967); Howard v. Riley, 409 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Mo.1966). | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Boydgreen1 sentence2001While offensive use of the doctrine may be a less favored approach, this does not excuse the satisfaction of this requirement by those parties employing the doctrine defensively. [2] American Polled Hereford v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). [3] Pruiett v. Wilform, 477 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Mo. 1972); Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Mo.1970); Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188, 189-90 (Mo.1967); Howard v. Riley, 409 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Mo.1966). | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Rileygreen1 sentence2001While offensive use of the doctrine may be a less favored approach, this does not excuse the satisfaction of this requirement by those parties employing the doctrine defensively. [2] American Polled Hereford v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). [3] Pruiett v. Wilform, 477 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Mo. 1972); Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Mo.1970); Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188, 189-90 (Mo.1967); Howard v. Riley, 409 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Mo.1966). | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. Blakegreen1 sentence2001While offensive use of the doctrine may be a less favored approach, this does not excuse the satisfaction of this requirement by those parties employing the doctrine defensively. [2] American Polled Hereford v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). [3] Pruiett v. Wilform, 477 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Mo. 1972); Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Mo.1970); Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188, 189-90 (Mo.1967); Howard v. Riley, 409 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Mo.1966). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Hauschildgreen1 sentence1988The Supreme Court in Davis v. Hauschild, 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-60 (Mo.1951), held that if a party pursues one of two consistent remedies and obtains a satisfaction of his claim, he is barred from pursuing the other remedy. | 1 | 1 |
Meredith Corp. v. Design & Lithography Center, Inc.green2 sentences1984The opinion concluded it had not stating at p. 181: “It is well-established that where the condition requires satisfaction as to commercial value or quality, operative fitness, or mechanical utility, an objective standard is to be used in determining whether the clause has been satisfied.” The opinion cited the Restatement, Section 228 above and Meredith Corp. v. Design & Lithography Center, Inc., 101 Idaho 391 , 614 P.2d 414, 416 (1980). 1984The opinion concluded it had not stating at p. 181: “It is well-established that where the condition requires satisfaction as to commercial value or quality, operative fitness, or mechanical utility, an objective standard is to be used in determining whether the clause has been satisfied.” The opinion cited the Restatement, Section 228 above and Meredith Corp. v. Design & Lithography Center, Inc., 101 Idaho 391 , 614 P.2d 414, 416 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Hall, 684 S.W.2d at 386-87 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hanson v. Denckla
green
2 sentences1996In the other the plaintiff seeks to apply what he concedes to be the property of the defendant to the satisfaction of a claim against him.” Hanson, 357 U.S. at 246 n. 12, 78 S.Ct. at 1236 n. 12. 7 . 1996In the other the plaintiff seeks to apply what he concedes to be the property of the defendant to the satisfaction of a claim against him.” Hanson, 357 U.S. at 246 n. 12, 78 S.Ct. at 1236 n. 12. 7 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lockwood v. Exchange Bank
green
1 sentence1929In Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U.S. 294 , the Supreme Court of the United States held that the title to property which was exempt from execution under the State law did not pass to the trustee in bankruptcy, and if a creditor had a right under the State law to subject the exempt property to the satisfaction of his claim, the Federal court would, upon proper application, withhold the discharge of the bankrupt until a reasonable time had elapsed to enable the creditor to assert his claim in the State court. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
In re Brumbaugh
green
1 sentence1929In the case of In re Brumbaugh, 128 F. 971 , it was held that where it was contended that a bankrupt was not entitled to retain property claimed as exempt as against a judgment for breach of promise of marriage, and the only way in which the judgment creditor could test the question was by proceeding in the State court, the bankrupt's discharge should be withheld to afford the creditor reasonable opportunity to test her rights by proceeding to judgment in the State court. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Bradner Smith & Co. v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1902“A party can not ask the aid of the law upon inconsistent and contradictory grounds; but if co-existent remedies are consistent with each other, he may adopt all or select any one which he thinks best suited to the end sought, and only the satisfaction of the claim in one case constitutes a bar in the other.” Bradner v. Williams, 178 Ill. 420 . | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Shelley v. Boothe
neutral
1 sentence1897It has been the recognized doctrine of Missouri courts since Shelley v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74 , was decided, that “A creditor has a perfect right to take security for an honest debt from his debtor, although he may know that the debtor thereby intends to hinder, delay or defeat his other creditors, provided always the creditor so preferred does not participate in the fraudulent purpose or intent of his debtor.” Alberger v. White, 117 Mo. 347 , and cases cited. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Alberger v. White
neutral
1 sentence1897It has been the recognized doctrine of Missouri courts since Shelley v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74 , was decided, that “A creditor has a perfect right to take security for an honest debt from his debtor, although he may know that the debtor thereby intends to hinder, delay or defeat his other creditors, provided always the creditor so preferred does not participate in the fraudulent purpose or intent of his debtor.” Alberger v. White, 117 Mo. 347 , and cases cited. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Terry v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1897But the general rule is, that a simple contract creditor whose claim has not been reduced to judgment and who has no express lien by mortgage, trust deed, or otherwise can not come into a court of equity to obtain possession of the assets of the corporation and their application to the satisfaction of his claim, or to have transfers of its property to others not stockholders or directors of the corporation set aside upon the ground of fraud. • It is said in Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628 : “Ordinarily, a creditor must put his demand into judgment against his debtor and exhaust his remedies at | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.