8 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1905–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPgreen2 sentences2015A defendant’s contention that a plaintiffs exclusive remedy for a personal-injury claim is through the workers’ compensation system “is not a question that affects the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction”; instead, a claim of workers’ compensation exclusivity “is a matter of affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved as provided in Rules 55.08 and 55.27.” McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 298 S.W.3d 473, 479 (Mo. banc 2009); see also Treaster v. Betts, 324 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). 2015"An affirmative defense is a procedural tool available to defendants [that] ‘seeks to defeat or avoid the plaintiff's cause of actionf] and avers that even if the allegations of the petition are taken as true, the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid the legal responsibility alleged.' ” Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76, 122 (Mo.App.2006) (quoting Mobley v. Baker, 72 S.W.3d 251, 257 (Mo.App.2002)). 7 . "[A] claim that the [circuit] court has before it an exception to the normal rule that tort cases are determin | 3 | 3 |
Treaster v. Bettsgreen2 sentences2015A defendant’s contention that a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for a personal-injury claim is through the workers’ compensation system “is not a question that affects the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction”; instead, a claim of workers’ compensation exclusivity “is a matter of affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved as provided in Rules 55.08 and 55.27.” McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 298 S.W.3d 473, 479 (Mo. banc 2009); see also Treaster v. Betts, 324 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). 2015A defendant’s contention that a plaintiffs exclusive remedy for a personal-injury claim is through the workers’ compensation system “is not a question that affects the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction”; instead, a claim of workers’ compensation exclusivity “is a matter of affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved as provided in Rules 55.08 and 55.27.” McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 298 S.W.3d 473, 479 (Mo. banc 2009); see also Treaster v. Betts, 324 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Balbirnie, 541 S.W.3d at 711 (noting specifically that an “exception is found in a separate clause or . . . disconnected from the definition” it is “for the defendant to claim as a matter of affirmative defense.”). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2015"An affirmative defense is a procedural tool available to defendants [that] ‘seeks to defeat or avoid the plaintiff's cause of actionf] and avers that even if the allegations of the petition are taken as true, the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid the legal responsibility alleged.' ” Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76, 122 (Mo.App.2006) (quoting Mobley v. Baker, 72 S.W.3d 251, 257 (Mo.App.2002)). 7 . "[A] claim that the [circuit] court has before it an exception to the normal rule that tort cases are determin | 1 | 1 |
Mobley v. Bakergreen1 sentence2015"An affirmative defense is a procedural tool available to defendants [that] ‘seeks to defeat or avoid the plaintiff's cause of actionf] and avers that even if the allegations of the petition are taken as true, the plaintiff cannot prevail because there are additional facts that permit the defendant to avoid the legal responsibility alleged.' ” Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76, 122 (Mo.App.2006) (quoting Mobley v. Baker, 72 S.W.3d 251, 257 (Mo.App.2002)). 7 . "[A] claim that the [circuit] court has before it an exception to the normal rule that tort cases are determin | 1 | 1 |
State v. Litterellgreen1 sentence1996State v. Litterell, 800 S.W.2d 7, 12 (Mo.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1990State v. Brown, 306 Mo. 532 , 267 S.W. 864, 865 [2-3] (1924); State v. Zammar, 305 S.W.2d 441, 444 [5] (Mo.1957); 1 C. 1990State v. Brown, 306 Mo. 532 , 267 S.W. 864, 865 [2-3] (1924); State v. Zammar, 305 S.W.2d 441, 444 [5] (Mo.1957); 1 C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zammargreen1 sentence1990State v. Brown, 306 Mo. 532 , 267 S.W. 864, 865 [2-3] (1924); State v. Zammar, 305 S.W.2d 441, 444 [5] (Mo.1957); 1 C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ditto, Incorporated v. Heather Davids, Chris Davids and Revive Lee's Summit, LLC, F/K/A Ditto Lee's Summit
green
2 sentences2015“For summary judgment to be 5 granted to a defendant on the basis of an affirmative defense, the movant must establish ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support movant’s properly-pleaded [sic] affirmative defense.” Ditto, Inc., 457 S.W.3d at 14 -15 (quoting ITT Commercial Fin. 2015“For summary judgment to be granted to a defendant on the basis of an affirmative defense, the movant must establish ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support movant’s properly-pleaded [sic] affirmative defense.’ ” Ditto, Inc., 457 S.W.3d at 14 -15 (quoting ITT Commercial Fin. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. West
green
1 sentence2018"However, where the exception is found in a separate clause or part of the statute disconnected from the definition of the offense, the exception is not for the prosecution to negate, but for the defendant to claim as a matter of affirmative defense." West , 929 S.W.2d at 242 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Thorpe v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1905If, however, the danger was so imminent that a reasonably prudent person would have abandoned; the service, he was guilty of contributory negligence, which was a matter of affirmative defense to be pleaded as such. [Williams v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 475 ; Young v. Iron Co., 103 Mo. 324 ; Thorpe v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 650 .] It seems to be a settled question in this State that such matters are .affirmative defenses to-be pleaded. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Williams v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1905If, however, the danger was so imminent that a reasonably prudent person would have abandoned; the service, he was guilty of contributory negligence, which was a matter of affirmative defense to be pleaded as such. [Williams v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 475 ; Young v. Iron Co., 103 Mo. 324 ; Thorpe v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 650 .] It seems to be a settled question in this State that such matters are .affirmative defenses to-be pleaded. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Young v. Shickle, Harrison & Howard Iron Co.
neutral
1 sentence1905If, however, the danger was so imminent that a reasonably prudent person would have abandoned; the service, he was guilty of contributory negligence, which was a matter of affirmative defense to be pleaded as such. [Williams v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 475 ; Young v. Iron Co., 103 Mo. 324 ; Thorpe v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 650 .] It seems to be a settled question in this State that such matters are .affirmative defenses to-be pleaded. | 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.