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.
8 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Luce v. Anglingreen2 sentences1978And, “While defendant should not be required at [the motion] stage to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, he should be required to make some showing to the court of the existence of at least an arguable theory of defense.” Luce, supra, at 535 S.W.2d 504 [6—8]. 1978And, “While defendant should not be required at [the motion] stage to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, he should be required to make some showing to the court of the existence of at least an arguable theory of defense.” Luce, supra, at 535 S.W.2d 504 [6—8]. | 2 | 4 |
Snelling v. Reliance Automotive, Inc.green2 sentences2006Snelling v. Reliance Auto., Inc., 144 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Mo.App.2004). 2006Snelling v. Reliance Auto., Inc., 144 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Mo.App.2004). | 2 | 2 |
Newton v. Manleygreen1 sentence2004“A defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment, although not required to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, is required to make some showing to the court of at least an arguable theory of defense.” Newton v. Manley, 824 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Mo.App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winsor v. Terex-Telelect-Inc.
green
1 sentence2004The meritorious defense requirement is satisfied if the defaulting party “sets forth allegations which, if supported by evidence found credible by the fact-finder, would defeat the plaintiffs claim.” Winsor, 43 S.W.3d at 466 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Robson v. Willers
green
2 sentences1992"A defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment, although not required to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, is required to make some showing to the court of at least an arguable theory of defense." Robson, 784 S.W.2d at 895 . 1992“A defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment, although not required to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, is required to make some showing to the court of at least an arguable theory of defense.” Robson, 784 S.W.2d at 895 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gibson Ex Rel. Woodall v. Elley
green
2 sentences1992The limited function of the motion court in this case is expressed in a paraphrase of a well-stated proposition in Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, supra. "It [was] not for [the motion] court to decide whether or not [Teresa Manley] should prevail upon [her] defense, but rather if a meritorious defense existed to [Newton's] charges. 1992The limited function of the motion court in this case is expressed in a paraphrase of a well-stated proposition in Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, supra. “It [was] not for [the motion] court to decide whether or not [Teresa Manley] should prevail upon [her] defense, but rather if a meritorious defense existed to [Newton’s] charges. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.