8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sexton v. Jenkins & Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2021The doctrine of issue preclusion (also known as collateral estoppel) “precludes re-litigation of an issue previously decided and incorporated into an earlier judgment.” Sexton v. Jenkins & Assocs., Inc., 152 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Mo. banc 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Crawfordgreen1 sentence2015Standard of Review In reviewing a judgment on the pleadings for a defendant, the plaintiffs “pleadings are liberally construed and all alleged facts are accepted as true and construed in a light most favorable to the pleader.” Anderson v. Crawford, 309 S.W.3d 863, 866 (Mo.App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Mehlville Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green1 sentence2009“Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, a party is barred from raising an issue in a subsequent proceeding if: (1) the issue decided in the prior proceeding was identical to the issue presented in the current action; (2) the prior judgment resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party or in privity with the party in the prior proceeding; and (4) the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding.” Woods v. Mehlville Chrysler-Plymouth, 198 S.W.3d 165, 168 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Shores v. Express Lending Services, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Shores, 998 S.W.2d at 126 . | 1 | 1 |
American Polled Hereford Ass'n v. City of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1983Although as the putative grandmother she arguably had some interest in the question of the paternity of Barry Noel, “privity within the meaning of the doctrine of issue preclusion ... is not established from the mere fact that persons may happen to be interested in the same question, or in proving or disproving the same state of facts.” American Polled Hereford Assoc. v. City of Kansas City, 626 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Mo.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Carr
green
2 sentences2009Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1984), and Oates v. Safeco Ins. 2009Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1984), and Oates v. Safeco Ins. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Metal Exchange Corp. v. J.W. Terrill, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Thoma v. Thoma
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport
green
2 sentences1983In that case, the Supreme Court cited and quoted at 242, Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Newport, 247 U.S. 464, 476 , 38 S.Ct. 566, 570 , 62 L.Ed. 1215 (1918) as follows: The doctrine of res judicata rests at bottom upon the ground that the party to be affected ... has litigated or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction.. .. 1983In that case, the Supreme Court cited and quoted at 242, Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Newport, 247 U.S. 464, 476 , 38 S.Ct. 566, 570 , 62 L.Ed. 1215 (1918) as follows: The doctrine of res judicata rests at bottom upon the ground that the party to be affected ... has litigated or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction.. .. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Allen v. McCurry
green
2 sentences1983The objective of the issue preclusion doctrine is to relieve the parties from the cost and vexation of multiple litigations, to conserve judicial resources and to encourage reliance on adjudication by avoidance of inconsistent decisions [Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95 , 101 S.Ct. 411, 415 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) ] — and not to subvert appeals. 1983The objective of the issue preclusion doctrine is to relieve the parties from the cost and vexation of multiple litigations, to conserve judicial resources and to encourage reliance on adjudication by avoidance of inconsistent decisions [Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95 , 101 S.Ct. 411, 415 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) ] — and not to subvert appeals. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.