66 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1877–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
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 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). 2015The 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). | 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.E.D.2001). 2004Wall USA, Inc. v. City of Ballwin, 53 S.W.3d 168, 172 (Mo.App. | 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Lorenzini v. Shortgreen2 sentences2012Lorenzini v. Short, 312 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Mo.App. 2012Lorenzini v. Short, 312 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Sheppard v. Eastgreen2 sentences2007Sheppard v. East, 192 S.W.3d 518, 523 (Mo.App. 2007Id. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Sullivangreen1 sentence2007Sullivan v. Sullivan, 159 S.W.3d 529, 541-42 (Mo.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
| David Ranken, Jr. Technical Institute v. Boykinsgreen | 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 |
| Rustici v. Weidemeyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Mercantile Trust Company National Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Groves v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
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
2 sentences2014In fact, “Missouri, with few exceptions, follows the majority American rule that litigants pay their own attorney[] fees.” McPherson, 99 S.W.3d at 481 . 2014“A [trial] court has the inherent power to sanction bad faith conduct, probably by way of awarding attorney!] fees, on analogy to the power to award attorney[ ] fees related to prosecuting a contemnor.” Id. (internal citations omitted) “But it may do so only when the sanctioned party acted in bad faith.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
66, Inc. v. Crestwood Commons Redevelopment Corp.
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 594 . 2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Rhodes v. Marsh green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| 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 |
| Arnold v. Edelman green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society red | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Stone v. Stone neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Remmers v. Remmers green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Nichols v. Eaton green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Jones v. Harrison neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Barlow v. Shawnee Investment Co. green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Doyle v. Fitchburg Railroad neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Dugan v. Blue Hill Street Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Denver & Berkeley Park Rapid Transit Co. v. Dwyer green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Peterson v. Seattle Traction Co. green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Harris v. Puget Sound Electric Railway neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Eberts v. Detroit, Mt. Clemens & Marine City Railway neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Arnot v. Woodburn neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Berthold v. Berthold green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Furnold v. Bank of the State neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Butler v. Lawson green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Hammons v. Renfrow neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Ferguson's Administrator v. Carson's Administrator neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| 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 |
| Hackett v. Watts green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Storts v. George green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| George v. Somerville neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Miller v. Woodward neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Seligman v. Rogers neutral | 1 | 1905–1905 |
| Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh green | 1 | 1905–1905 |
| Walser v. Wear green | 1 | 1905–1905 |
| Borgess Investment Co. v. Vette neutral | 1 | 1905–1905 |
| Huntington v. Attrill green | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.