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.
77 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1877–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Laubinger v. Laubingergreen2 sentences2009Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39, 55 (Mo.App.2002). “ ‘However, a trial court may order one party to pay the other’s attorney’s fees and costs where such is authorized by statute.’ ” Id. (quoting Laubinger v. Laubinger, 5 S.W.3d 166, 181 (Mo.App.1999)). 2007Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39, 55 (Mo.App.2002). “ ‘However, a trial court may order one party to pay the other’s attorney’s fees and costs where such is authorized by statute.’ ” Id. (quoting Laubinger v. Laubinger, 5 S.W.3d 166, 181 (Mo.App.1999)). | 5 | 6 |
Cohen v. Cohengreen2 sentences2013“Missouri courts typically follow the ‘American rule’ with regard to awards of attorney’s fees and costs[,] which provides that each litigant should bear his or her own litigation expenses.” Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39, 55 (Mo.App.2002). 2009Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39, 55 (Mo.App.2002). “ ‘However, a trial court may order one party to pay the other’s attorney’s fees and costs where such is authorized by statute.’ ” Id. (quoting Laubinger v. Laubinger, 5 S.W.3d 166, 181 (Mo.App.1999)). | 4 | 4 |
Nix v. Nixgreen2 sentences2000Nix v. Nix, 862 S.W.2d 948, 952 (Mo.App. 1996Ordinarily, any exceptions fit into one of four categories: recovery of fees pursuant to contract, recovery provided by statute, recovery as an item of damage to a wronged party involved in collateral litigation, and, occasionally, reimbursement when ordered by a court of equity to balance benefits.” Nix v. Nix, 862 S.W.2d 948, 952 (Mo.App.1993). | 4 | 4 |
Midland Property Partners, LLC v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2015We further recognize, consistent with the -American rule, that Missouri courts “have favored the award of attorneys’ fees only where a contract expressly authorizes their recovery.” Watkins, 416 S.W.3d at 819 . 2015The assignment agreement provides: “[I]n the event of default, I [Appellant] agree to pay all collection costs incurred by [Community Bank].” “Missouri courts, in accordance with the American rule, have favored the award of attorneys’ fees only where a contract expressly authorizes their recovery.” Midland Property Partners, LLC v. Watkins, 416 S.W.3d 805, 819 (Mo.App.W.D. 2013). | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluffgreen2 sentences1999As explained in Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakey, 912 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App. 1995): Missouri courts have historically adhered to the “American rule” that with certain exceptions, litigants bear the expense of their own attorney fees, Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, 820 S.W.2d 327, 340 [23] (Mo.App.1991), and of paying the fees of the experts needed to make them case. 1995Missouri courts have historically adhered to the “American rule” that with certain exceptions, litigants bear the expense of their own attorney fees, Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, 820 S.W.2d. 327, 340 [23] (Mo.App.1991), and of paying the fees of the experts needed to make their ease. | 3 | 3 |
Capitol Group, Inc. v. Colliergreen2 sentences2015The rules governing construction of contracts similarly apply to the Acknowledgment, but we must be cognizant that “the liability of a guarantor is to be strictly construed according to the terms of the guaranty agreement and may not be extended by implication beyond the strict letter of the obligation.” Capitol Group, Inc. v. Collier, 365 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (citation and quotations omitted). 2015The rules governing construction of contracts similarly apply to the Acknowledgment, but we must be cognir zant that, “the liability of a guarantor is to be strictly construed according to the terms of the guaranty agreement and may not be extended by implication beyond the strict letter of the obligation.” Capitol Group, Inc. v. Collier, 365 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (citation and quotations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Wansing v. Wansinggreen2 sentences2011“Missouri courts generally follow the ‘American rule,’ which provides that each party should bear his or her own litigation expenses.” Wansing v. Wansing, 277 S.W.3d 760, 770 (Mo.App.2009). 2010With respect to attorney’s fees, “Missouri courts generally follow the ‘American rule,’ which provides that each party should bear his or her own litigation expenses.” Warning v. Wansing, 277 S.W.3d 760, 770 (Mo.App.2009). | 2 | 2 |
Wall USA, Inc. v. City of Ballwingreen2 sentences2004Wall USA, Inc. v. City of Ballwin, 53 S.W.3d 168, 172 (Mo.App. 2004Wall USA, Inc. v. City of Ballwin, 53 S.W.3d 168, 172 (Mo.App.E.D.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Christian Salvesen Holdings, Inc.green2 sentences2002“While ‘[i]n most circumstances, the trial court is granted broad discretion to award attorney’s fees ... if a claim for attorney’s fees is made under a provision of the contract, the trial court must comply with the terms set forth therein.’” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Christian Salvesen Holdings, Inc., 978 S.W.2d 377, 385 (Mo.App.1998)). *366 Although the language of the agreement required Father to pay child support only until the children reached age eighteen or finished high school, that agreement ran afoul of § 452.340.5, as explained above. 2000Paragraph J, of Article III, of the separation agreement at issue provides that “[H]usband will be personally liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, that may be incurred by [Wife] in enforcing her rights or collecting such ben- *930 efíts from [Husband].” While, “[i]n most circumstances, the trial court is granted broad discretion to award attorney’s fees ... if a claim for attorney’s fees is made under a provision of the contract, the trial court must comply with the terms set forth therein.” Jackson v. Christian Salvesen Holdings, Inc., 978 S.W.2d 377, 385 (Mo.App.1998) (citation o | 2 | 2 |
MAYOR, COUNCILMEN, & CITIZENS ETC. v. Beardgreen2 sentences2002Liberty v. Beard, 636 S.W.2d 330, 331 (Mo. banc 1982). 2000See Liberty v. Beard, 636 S.W.2d 330, 331 [2] (Mo.banc 1982); Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakey, 912 S.W.2d 676, 678 [1] (Mo.App.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Garner v. Hubbsgreen2 sentences2002Generally, exceptions to this rule fit into one of four categories: “recovery of fees pursuant to contract, recovery provided by statute, recovery as an item of damage to a wronged party involved in collateral litigation, and, occasionally, reimbursement when ordered by a court of equity to balance benefits.” Attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fit under the “contract” exception to the “American rule.” Gamer v. Hubbs, 17 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Mo.App.2000). 2002Generally, exceptions to this rule fit into one of four categories: “recovery of fees pursuant to contract, recovery provided by statute, recovery as an item of damage to a wronged party involved in collateral litigation, and, occasionally, reimbursement when ordered by a court of equity to balance benefits.” Attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fit under the “contract” exception to the “American rule.” Gamer v. Hubbs, 17 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Mo.App.2000). | 2 | 2 |
Nichols v. Bossertgreen2 sentences1999See Anderson v. Howald, 897 S.W.2d 176, 181 [9] (Mo. App.1995) (quoting Nichols v. Bossert, 727 S.W.2d 211, 213-14 [3] (Mo.App. 1987)). 1995See Anderson v. Howald, 897 S.W.2d 176, 181 [9] (Mo.App.1995) (quoting Nichols v. Bossert, 727 S.W.2d 211, 213-14 [3] (Mo.App. 1987)). | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Howaldgreen2 sentences1999See Anderson v. Howald, 897 S.W.2d 176, 181 [9] (Mo. App.1995) (quoting Nichols v. Bossert, 727 S.W.2d 211, 213-14 [3] (Mo.App. 1987)). 1995See Anderson v. Howald, 897 S.W.2d 176, 181 [9] (Mo.App.1995) (quoting Nichols v. Bossert, 727 S.W.2d 211, 213-14 [3] (Mo.App. 1987)). | 2 | 2 |
County Court of Washington County v. Murphygreen2 sentences1993County Court of Washington County v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Mo. banc 1983). 1991County Court of Washington County v. Murphy, *340 658 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Mo.banc 1983); Mo. Damages, § 19.2 (Mo.Bar 1988). | 2 | 2 |
McCreary v. McCrearygreen2 sentences2002“Missouri courts have historically adhered to the ‘American rule’ that, with certain exceptions, litigants bear the expense of their own attorney fees.” McCreary v. McCreary, 954 S.W.2d 433, 452 (Mo.App. 1997). 2000Attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fit under the “contract” exception to the “American rule.” See Id. | 1 | 2 |
Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakeygreen2 sentences2000See Liberty v. Beard, 636 S.W.2d 330, 331 [2] (Mo.banc 1982); Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakey, 912 S.W.2d 676, 678 [1] (Mo.App.1995). 1999As explained in Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakey, 912 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App. 1995): Missouri courts have historically adhered to the “American rule” that with certain exceptions, litigants bear the expense of their own attorney fees, Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, 820 S.W.2d 327, 340 [23] (Mo.App.1991), and of paying the fees of the experts needed to make them case. | 1 | 2 |
Frontenac Bank v. GB Investments, LLCgreen2 sentences2019Frontenac Bank v. GB Investments, LLC, 528 S.W.3d 381, 397 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017); see also generally LaBarca v. LaBarca, 534 S.W.3d 329, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fall within the ‘contract’ exception to the American rule that parties pay for their own attorney’s fees). 2019Frontenac Bank v. GB Investments, LLC, 528 S.W.3d 381, 397 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017); see also generally LaBarca v. LaBarca, 534 S.W.3d 329, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fall within the ‘contract’ exception to the American rule that parties pay for their own attorney’s fees). | 1 | 1 |
Labarca v. Labarcagreen2 sentences2019Frontenac Bank v. GB Investments, LLC, 528 S.W.3d 381, 397 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017); see also generally LaBarca v. LaBarca, 534 S.W.3d 329, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fall within the ‘contract’ exception to the American rule that parties pay for their own attorney’s fees). 2019Frontenac Bank v. GB Investments, LLC, 528 S.W.3d 381, 397 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017); see also generally LaBarca v. LaBarca, 534 S.W.3d 329, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fall within the ‘contract’ exception to the American rule that parties pay for their own attorney’s fees). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Department for Community Based Servicesgreen2 sentences2018Under the American rule, "attorney's fees in Kentucky are not awarded as costs to the prevailing party unless there is a statute permitting it or as a term of a contractual agreement between the parties." Id. 2018Under the American rule, "attorney's fees in Kentucky are not awarded as costs to the prevailing party unless there is a statute permitting it or as a term of a contractual agreement between the parties." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Schottel-Lehde v. Schottelgreen1 sentence2017“Attorney fee provisions in separation agreements fit under the ‘contract’ exception to the ‘American rule.’” Schottel-Lehde v. Schottel, 75 S.W.3d 359, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Reedgreen1 sentence2017Reed v. Reed, 10 S.W.3d 173, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson Countygreen2 sentences2015Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., 6 Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Mo. banc 2013); Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 277 S.W.3d 647, 657 (Mo. banc 2009). 2015Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Mo. banc 2013); Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 277 S.W.3d 647, 657 (Mo. banc 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.green2 sentences2015Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., 6 Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Mo. banc 2013); Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 277 S.W.3d 647, 657 (Mo. banc 2009). 2015Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Mo. banc 2013); Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 277 S.W.3d 647, 657 (Mo. banc 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Lorenzini v. Shortgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sullivan v. Sullivangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sheppard v. Eastgreen | 1 | 1 |
| David Ranken, Jr. Technical Institute v. Boykinsred | 1 | 1 |
| Memco, Inc. v. Chronistergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Murphy v. Carrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. DeSistogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Crews v. Crewsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skyles v. Burgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bryson v. Brysongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vinson v. Vinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Groves v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rustici v. Weidemeyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Mercantile Trust Company National Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohlendorf v. Feinsteingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Haughton Elevator Co. v. C. Rallo Contracting Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reynolds v. Rayborngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nichols v. Eaton
green
2 sentences1937It was at this time that Missouri can be definitely said to have adopted the American rule, following the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U.S. 716 . 1937It was at this time that Missouri can be definitely said to have adopted the American rule, following the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U.S. 716 . | 3 | 1905–1937 |
Jones v. Harrison
neutral
2 sentences1929Regardless of the rule in other jurisdictions, the trust thus created is a valid spendthrift trust under the well-established rule in this State and one that the courts of this State will enforce. [Lampert v. Haydel. 96 Mo. 439 , 9 S.W. 780 ; Partridge v. Cavender, 96 Mo. 452 , 9 S.W. 785 ; Jarboe v. Hey, 122 Mo. 341 , 26 S.W. 968 ; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515 , 88 S.W. 66 ; Graham v. More (Mo. Sup.), 189 S.W. 1186 ; Maxwell v. Growney, 279 Mo. 113 , 213 S.W. 427 ; Matthews v. Van Cleve, *Page 1029 282 Mo. 19 , 221 S.W. 34 ; Lane v. Garrison, 293 Mo. 530 , 239 S.W. 813 .] For further disc 1929Regardless of the rule in other jurisdictions, the trust thus created is a valid spendthrift trust under the well-established rule in this State and one that the courts of this State will enforce. [Lampert v. Haydel. 96 Mo. 439 , 9 S.W. 780 ; Partridge v. Cavender, 96 Mo. 452 , 9 S.W. 785 ; Jarboe v. Hey, 122 Mo. 341 , 26 S.W. 968 ; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515 , 88 S.W. 66 ; Graham v. More (Mo. Sup.), 189 S.W. 1186 ; Maxwell v. Growney, 279 Mo. 113 , 213 S.W. 427 ; Matthews v. Van Cleve, *Page 1029 282 Mo. 19 , 221 S.W. 34 ; Lane v. Garrison, 293 Mo. 530 , 239 S.W. 813 .] For further disc | 2 | 1929–1937 |
Coates v. United States Express Co.
green
2 sentences1904In Coates v. U. S. Express Co., 45 Mo. 238 , the Supreme Court of this State repudiated the English doctrine, that a carrier knowingly receiving a parcel consigned to' a given place, contracted to carry it there unless a different understanding was made known to the owner, and approved the American rule then prevailing, to the effect that no responsibility as a carrier is imposed upon the receiving carrier beyond its own line after due care in forwarding; unless business usage, the custom of' the carrier or its conduct showed that it received the freight as carrier for the whole route. 1904In Coates v. U. S. Express Co., 45 Mo. 238 , the Supreme Court of this State repudiated the English doctrine, that a carrier knowingly receiving a parcel consigned to' a given place, contracted to carry it there unless a different understanding was made known to the owner, and approved the American rule then prevailing, to the effect that no responsibility as a carrier is imposed upon the receiving carrier beyond its own line after due care in forwarding; unless business usage, the custom of' the carrier or its conduct showed that it received the freight as carrier for the whole route. | 2 | 1891–1904 |
Snider v. Adams Express Co.
green
2 sentences1891Parsons, formulating the rule : ‘ The prevailing rule in this country may now be said to cast upon the carrier no responsibility as a carrier beyond his own route. * * * Unless the usage of the business or of the carrier, or his conduct or language, shows that he takes the parcel as carrier for the whole route.’ This ruling was followed in Snider v. Express Co., 63 Mo. 376 , decided in 1876. 1891Parsons, formulating the rule : ‘ The prevailing rule in this country may now be said to cast upon the carrier no responsibility as a carrier beyond his own route. * * * Unless the usage of the business or of the carrier, or his conduct or language, shows that he takes the parcel as carrier for the whole route.’ This ruling was followed in Snider v. Express Co., 63 Mo. 376 , decided in 1876. | 2 | 1890–1891 |
City of Aurora, Missouri, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, d/b/a CenturyLink, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
green
2 sentences2022Aurora, 592 S.W.3d at 790 (citing Tupper v. City of St. 2022Aurora, 592 S.W.3d at 790 (citing Tupper v. City of St. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sarah Tupper, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. City of St. Louis, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
green
2 sentences2019Those portions of the transcript, however, do not specifically address postjudgment interest or the application of section 408.040, RSMo Supp. 2012, instead of Wentzville’s interest ordinance. 38 the trial court again found the Cities were entitled to attorney fees under sections 392.350, 488.472, and 527.100 and awarded $1,190,610.77 in attorney fees and expenses. 18 Missouri courts follow the American rule, “which provides that, absent statutory authorization or contractual agreement, each party bears the expense of his or her own attorney’s fees.” Tupper, 468 S.W.3d at 374 . 2019Those portions of the transcript, however, do not specifically address postjudgment interest or the application of section 408.040, RSMo Supp. 2012, instead of Wentzville’s interest ordinance. 38 the trial court again found the Cities were entitled to attorney fees under sections 392.350, 488.472, and 527.100 and awarded $1,190,610.77 in attorney fees and expenses. 18 Missouri courts follow the American rule, “which provides that, absent statutory authorization or contractual agreement, each party bears the expense of his or her own attorney’s fees.” Tupper, 468 S.W.3d at 374 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Monsanto Co. v. Garst Seed Co.
green
2 sentences2017“One exception to the American rule is where a contract states that a prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney’s fees.” Id. 2017“One exception to the American rule is where a contract states that a prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney’s fees.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| McPherson v. U.S. Physicians Mutual Risk Retention Group green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| 66, Inc. v. Crestwood Commons Redevelopment Corp. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Rhodes v. Marsh green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Arnold v. Edelman green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Warren green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Bernheimer Ex Rel. Bernheimer v. First National Bank green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Stone v. Stone neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society red | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Remmers v. Remmers green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Barlow v. Shawnee Investment Co. green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Lampert v. Haydel green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Partridge v. Cavender neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Jarboe v. Hey green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Kessner v. Phillips green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Broadway National Bank v. Adams green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Maxwell v. Growney neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Lane v. Garrison neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Matthews v. Van Cleve neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Eberts v. Detroit, Mt. Clemens & Marine City Railway neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Doyle v. Fitchburg Railroad neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Dugan v. Blue Hill Street Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Peterson v. Seattle Traction Co. green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Harris v. Puget Sound Electric Railway neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Denver & Berkeley Park Rapid Transit Co. v. Dwyer green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Guinotte v. Chouteau neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Snyder v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1909–1909 |
| State v. Hatch neutral | 1 | 1907–1907 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 1907–1907 |
| Blair v. Chicago & Alton Railroad green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co. green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Benne v. Schnecko neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.