counterclaim any claim (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

counterclaim any claim in Missouri

8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2008 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Joel Bianco Kawasaki Plus v. Meramec Valley Bankgreen
mo · 2002 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008Rule 55.32 serves to consolidate all logically related claims into a single case “through the penalty of precluding the later assertion of omitted claims.” Joel Bianco Kawasaki, 81 S.W.3d at 532 (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).

11
Deborah W. Kane and Andrew Kane v. Magna Mixer Company and Paul L. Kramergreen
ca6 · 1995 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006But the pleader need not state the claim if: (1) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon the claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this Rule 55.32." [3] The parties agree that the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence under Rule 55.32(a). [4] See, e.g., Kane v. Magna Mixer Co., 71 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that the filing of any c

11
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Raytowngreen
mo · 1982 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006But the pleader need not state the claim if: (1) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon the claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this Rule 55.32." [3] The parties agree that the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence under Rule 55.32(a). [4] See, e.g., Kane v. Magna Mixer Co., 71 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that the filing of any c

11
Farrell v. Browngreen
idahoctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996See Farrell, 111 Idaho at 1031 , 729 P.2d at 1094 [4].

1996See Farrell, 111 Idaho at 1031 , 729 P.2d at 1094 [4].

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville green
· 1949
2 sentences

1984Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 359 Mo. 282 , 221 S.W.2d 471 (1949), speaks most clearly in this regard.

1984Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 359 Mo. 282 , 221 S.W.2d 471 (1949), speaks most clearly in this regard.

21984–1984
Myers v. Clayco State Bank green
moctapp · 1985
1 sentence

1990The most instructive case on that question is Myers v. Clayco State Bank, 687 S.W,2d 256 (Mo.App.1985).

11990–1990
State Ex Rel. Buchanan v. Jensen green
mo · 1964
2 sentences

1965Buchanan v. Jensen, supra, this court considered Rule 55.45(a) and its application in a somewhat similar situation.

1965Buchanan v. Jensen, supra. Prior to the amendment of Rule 55.45, effective May 1, 1962, the rule started with the words, “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim, not the subject of a pending action.” The 1962 amendment eliminated the words “not the subject of a pending action” and added an exception at the end of subsection (a).

11965–1965
Keller v. Keklikian green
mo · 1951
2 sentences

1964Keller v. Keklikian, supra, 362 Mo. at 927 , 244 S.W.2d at 1005 .

1964Keller v. Keklikian, supra, 362 Mo. at 927 , 244 S.W.2d at 1005 .

11964–1964

Where else courts name it

OH 32 (1993–2024) TX 31 (1947–2026) GA 12 (1971–2025) FL 11 (1969–2017) AL 9 (1990–2023) NM 8 (1986–2013) MO 8 (1964–2008) MA 7 (1995–2014) ND 6 (1967–2020) IN 5 (1986–2020) CO 5 (1982–2025) SC 5 (2002–2023) UT 4 (1952–2024) OK 4 (2002–2026) WY 4 (1983–2020) MT 3 (1987–1998) DC 3 (1949–2021) MD 3 (1968–1987) VT 3 (2002–2013) MS 3 (1965–2017) AK 3 (1965–1994) AZ 3 (1946–1971) AR 3 (1995–2012) WA 2 (1991–2008) NC 2 (1982–2018) HI 2 (1968–1990) VA 2 (1989–1996) CA 2 (2009–2011) WI 2 (1986–1987) MN 2 (2007–2011) TN 2 (2006–2019) SD 2 (1990–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check