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 1958–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wire Service Guild, Local 222, the Newspaper Guild, Afl-Cio v. United Press International, Inc.green1 sentence1995In Genesco, supra at [6] the Court stated the applicable standard as to arbitra-bility to be: The federal policy favoring arbitration requires us to construe arbitration clauses as broadly as possible. “[D]oubts as to arbi-trability should be ‘resolved in favor of coverage,’ ... language excluding certain disputes from arbitration must be ‘clear and unambiguous’ or ‘unmistakably clear’ and ... arbitration should be ordered ‘unless it may be said "with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ ” (quoting from S.A Mi | 1 | 1 |
International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. General Electric Companygreen1 sentence1995In Genesco, supra at [6] the Court stated the applicable standard as to arbitra-bility to be: The federal policy favoring arbitration requires us to construe arbitration clauses as broadly as possible. “[D]oubts as to arbi-trability should be ‘resolved in favor of coverage,’ ... language excluding certain disputes from arbitration must be ‘clear and unambiguous’ or ‘unmistakably clear’ and ... arbitration should be ordered ‘unless it may be said "with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ ” (quoting from S.A Mi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnsgreen1 sentence1987In State v. Burns, 671 S.W.2d 306, 311 [8, 9] (Mo.App.1984), this court stated the applicable rule as follows: As explicated in Amish v. Walnut Creek Development, Inc., 631 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Mo.App.1982), citing Atley v. Williams, 472 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Mo.App.1971), “[t]he rule concerning destructive contradictions on which defendant relies is applicable only to the respective elements of a witness’s testimony at trial, not to contradictions between trial testimony and prior statements.” The only answer that can be considered in applying the rule is the answer to the last question quoted above. | 1 | 1 |
Amish v. Walnut Creek Development, Inc.green1 sentence1987In State v. Burns, 671 S.W.2d 306, 311 [8, 9] (Mo.App.1984), this court stated the applicable rule as follows: As explicated in Amish v. Walnut Creek Development, Inc., 631 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Mo.App.1982), citing Atley v. Williams, 472 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Mo.App.1971), “[t]he rule concerning destructive contradictions on which defendant relies is applicable only to the respective elements of a witness’s testimony at trial, not to contradictions between trial testimony and prior statements.” The only answer that can be considered in applying the rule is the answer to the last question quoted above. | 1 | 1 |
Atley v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1987In State v. Burns, 671 S.W.2d 306, 311 [8, 9] (Mo.App.1984), this court stated the applicable rule as follows: As explicated in Amish v. Walnut Creek Development, Inc., 631 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Mo.App.1982), citing Atley v. Williams, 472 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Mo.App.1971), “[t]he rule concerning destructive contradictions on which defendant relies is applicable only to the respective elements of a witness’s testimony at trial, not to contradictions between trial testimony and prior statements.” The only answer that can be considered in applying the rule is the answer to the last question quoted above. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Pitcairn v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1977Pitcairn v. Public Service Commission, 232 Mo.App. 755 , 111 S.W.2d 982, 987 (1937), as follows: “True, appellants and other carriers may lose some business; but, if the public generally will be benefited thereby, such benefits may, and the commission evidently thought they did in this case, outweigh the damage resulting to the public through loss of business by any particular utility.” See also State ex rel. 1977Pitcairn v. Public Service Commission, 232 Mo.App. 755 , 111 S.W.2d 982, 987 (1937), as follows: “True, appellants and other carriers may lose some business; but, if the public generally will be benefited thereby, such benefits may, and the commission evidently thought they did in this case, outweigh the damage resulting to the public through loss of business by any particular utility.” See also State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Interest of ADR
green
2 sentences1984The court said, at p. 430: “The mere presence of the juvenile officer to warn the youth of his rights and to make sure that they were accorded to him, when all the facts and circumstances are considered, did not make the confession to the police officer a statement to the juvenile officer.” The court stated the applicable rule to be “ * * * that if, after he has been granted his federal constitutional Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, a juvenile subject to jurisdiction of the juvenile court makes a voluntary statement to someone other than a juvenile officer or other juvenile court personnel, 1975In rejecting the contention that the statement was made to a juvenile officer within the meaning of § 211.271(3), the court held ( 515 S.W.2d 430 ): “ * * * The mere presence of the juvenile officer to warn the youth of his rights and to make sure that they were accorded to him, when all the facts and circumstances are considered, did not make the confession to the police officer a statement to the juvenile officer.” The court stated the applicable rule to be “ * * * that if, after he has been granted his federal constitutional Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, a juvenile subject to jurisdicti | 2 | 1975–1984 |
Mcmahan Securities Co. L.P. v. Forum Capital Markets L.P.
green
1 sentence1995Similar statements are found in McMahan, supra at [6] and Boogher v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 825 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1992) [5, 6]. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
S.A. Mineracao Da Trindade-Samitri v. Utah International, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995In Genesco, supra at [6] the Court stated the applicable standard as to arbitra-bility to be: The federal policy favoring arbitration requires us to construe arbitration clauses as broadly as possible. “[D]oubts as to arbi-trability should be ‘resolved in favor of coverage,’ ... language excluding certain disputes from arbitration must be ‘clear and unambiguous’ or ‘unmistakably clear’ and ... arbitration should be ordered ‘unless it may be said "with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ ” (quoting from S.A Mi | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Boogher v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Similar statements are found in McMahan, supra at [6] and Boogher v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 825 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1992) [5, 6]. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Genesco, Inc. v. Kakiuchi
green
1 sentence1995In Genesco, supra at [6] the Court stated the applicable standard as to arbitra-bility to be: The federal policy favoring arbitration requires us to construe arbitration clauses as broadly as possible. “[D]oubts as to arbi-trability should be ‘resolved in favor of coverage,’ ... language excluding certain disputes from arbitration must be ‘clear and unambiguous’ or ‘unmistakably clear’ and ... arbitration should be ordered ‘unless it may be said "with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ ” (quoting from S.A Mi | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1986In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Thomas, 549 S.W.2d 616 (Mo.App.1977) [1,2] the court stated the applicable rule in interpreting insurance contracts: “The rule is firmly established in Missouri that insurance policies, like other contracts, must be given reasonable interpretations and in construing the terms of a policy ‘the courts discharge their full duty when they ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties, as disclosed by the contract they have entered into.’ ... | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Kennedy v. Bowling
green
1 sentence1978In analyzing the defendants’ liability the court stated the applicable rule, 4 S.W.2d at 445 : “According to plaintiffs’ evidence, defendants accepted the statements of plaintiff Kennedy that he knew nothing about the requirement for a building having the strength he desired, and defendants gave their assurance as experienced builders that the suggested and offered plans were sufficient for the purpose, and plaintiff acted upon that assurance. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Fowler v. Baalmann, Inc.
green
1 sentence1968Neither can plaintiff’s actions be held to fall within the exception to this rule as stated in Fowler v. Baalmann, supra, at 234 S.W.2d, l.c. 17, as follows: “Nor do these facts present an instance where an employee was doing a thing he was employed to do, but was doing it in a manner prohibited by his employer, such as, an employee whose duty it was to oil certain machinery, but who (contrary to his employer’s direct and affirmative orders) oiled the machinery while it was in motion. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Costello v. City of St. Louis
green
1 sentence1958Louis, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 591, 596 , this court stated the applicable rule for determining the validity of such a deed and the reasons therefor as follows: “Under the Jones-Munger Act, the proceedings preliminary to and the sale of property by the Collector for delinquent taxes is administrative in character; such preliminary proceedings and sale are non-judicial and ex parte in their'nature.. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.