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.
7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cain v. Hershewegreen2 sentences2012Cain v. Hershewe, 777 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo.App.1989). 1995Cain v. Hershewe, 777 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo.App.1989). | 3 | 3 |
Mobley v. Copelandgreen2 sentences2008The right of a party to summary judgment “must clearly appear as a matter of law,” Schwartz v. Lawson, 797 S.W.2d 828, 832 (Mo.App.1990), and “the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error.” Mobley v. Copeland, 828 S.W.2d 717, 724 (Mo.App.1992). 1992“Nevertheless, an order granting summary judgment is not pre sumptively erroneous; thus, as a matter of general law, the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error.” Mobley v. Copeland, 828 S.W.2d 717, 724 (Mo.App.1992). | 2 | 2 |
Schwartz v. Lawsongreen1 sentence2008The right of a party to summary judgment “must clearly appear as a matter of law,” Schwartz v. Lawson, 797 S.W.2d 828, 832 (Mo.App.1990), and “the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error.” Mobley v. Copeland, 828 S.W.2d 717, 724 (Mo.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Stacey v. Redfordgreen1 sentence2008We must therefore decide of our own volition if Respondent “established an undisputed right to judgment as a matter of law.” Stacey v. Redford, 226 S.W.3d 913, 914 (Mo.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Steen v. Colombogreen2 sentences1992Furthermore, the “judgment is presumptively correct and the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error.” Steen v. Colombo, 799 S.W.2d 169, 173-74 (Mo.App.1990). “[I]f the trial court does not state what law it applied the judgment will be affirmed if it is supported by any reasonable theory.” Id. at 174 . 1992Furthermore, the “judgment is presumptively correct and the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error.” Steen v. Colombo, 799 S.W.2d 169, 173-74 (Mo.App.1990). “[I]f the trial court does not state what law it applied the judgment will be affirmed if it is supported by any reasonable theory.” Id. at 174 . | 1 | 1 |
Delaney v. Gibsongreen1 sentence1989Delaney v. Gibson, 639 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Mo. banc 1982); Massman Construction Co. v. Kansas City, 487 S.W.2d 470, 478 [6] (Mo.1972). | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. Auto Owners Insurance Co.green1 sentence1989Co., 700 S.W.2d 882, 884 [1] (Mo.App.1985), but an order granting summary judgment is not presumptively erroneous, and as a matter of general law the burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate error. | 1 | 1 |
Massman Construction Co. v. Kansas Citygreen1 sentence1989Delaney v. Gibson, 639 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Mo. banc 1982); Massman Construction Co. v. Kansas City, 487 S.W.2d 470, 478 [6] (Mo.1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.