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 1993–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams Ex Rel. Wilford v. Barnes Hospitalgreen2 sentences2008He asked if any of “you folks ever had a lawsuit or claim brought against you?” Id. 2008He asked if any of "you folks ever had a lawsuit or claim brought against you?" Id. | 1 | 3 |
Guzzardo v. Vandeventer Spring Redevelopment Corp.green1 sentence2025See e.g., id. at 601–02 (dismissed nine years after original suit was filed); Duckett Creek, 930 S.W.2d at 500 (dismissed eight years after suit was filed); Shirrell v. Mo. Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446 , 449–50 (Mo. banc 1976) (dismissed four-and-a-half years after suit was filed); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Ryalsgreen1 sentence2007For support for this proposition, they rely on King v. Ryals, 981 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Girratono v. Kansas City Public Service Companygreen1 sentence1993“The appellate courts are more liberal in upholding a trial court’s action in sustaining a motion for new trial than in denying it.” Girratono v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 272 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Mo.1954). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duckett Creek Sewer District v. Westerfield Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2025See e.g., id. at 601–02 (dismissed nine years after original suit was filed); Duckett Creek, 930 S.W.2d at 500 (dismissed eight years after suit was filed); Shirrell v. Mo. Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446 , 449–50 (Mo. banc 1976) (dismissed four-and-a-half years after suit was filed); State ex rel. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co.
green
1 sentence2025See e.g., id. at 601–02 (dismissed nine years after original suit was filed); Duckett Creek, 930 S.W.2d at 500 (dismissed eight years after suit was filed); Shirrell v. Mo. Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446 , 449–50 (Mo. banc 1976) (dismissed four-and-a-half years after suit was filed); State ex rel. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hampton v. Carter Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Hampton, 238 S.W.3d at 176 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
W. E. Bowen Improvement Co. v. Van Hafften
green
1 sentence2002In Bowen, the reviewing court discussed an earlier case in which a contractor and the city agreed to bring a lawsuit to test the validity of a city ordinance. 238 S.W. at 148 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.