7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weiss v. Rojanasathitgreen2 sentences2015Co. v. Wilkinson, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.)222, 233, 20 L.Ed. 617 (1871)). 2 “The purpose of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is to prevent a party from taking inequitable advantage of a situation he ■ or she has caused.” Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Mo. banc 1998). 2015“The purpose of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is to prevent a party from taking inequitable advantage of a situation he or she has caused.” Weiss v. Rojana-sathit, 975 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Mo. banc 1998). | 6 | 6 |
State of Missouri ex rel. Bob T. Beisly II, Relator v. The Honorable Timothy Perigogreen1 sentence2018As Beisly explained, "The purpose of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is to prevent a party from taking inequitable advantage of a situation he or she has caused." Id. at 441 (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Savannah Place, Ltd. v. Heidelberggreen1 sentence2011Estoppel, or the existence thereof, “is ordinarily, usually, or primarily a question of fact.” Savannah Place, Ltd. v. Heidelberg, 122 S.W.3d 74, 81 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Dixon v. Shaftongreen1 sentence2007We have strictly applied stat *118 utes of limitations and “exceptions and es-toppels have been rather grudgingly found.” Dixon v. Shafton, 649 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Mo. banc 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Hammons v. Ehneygreen1 sentence2004See Hammons, 924 S.W.2d at 848 n. 3. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson
green
1 sentence2015Co. v. Wilkinson, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.)222, 233, 20 L.Ed. 617 (1871)). 2 “The purpose of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is to prevent a party from taking inequitable advantage of a situation he ■ or she has caused.” Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Mo. banc 1998). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.