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 2 courts 1902–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coover v. Moore & Walkergreen2 sentences2015See Coover v. Moore, 31 Mo. 574, 576 (Mo. 1862); Cummins v. Kansas City Pub. 2015See Coover v. Moore, 31 Mo. 574, 576 (Mo.1862); Cummins v. Kansas City Pub. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Threshergreen1 sentence1965See State v. Thresher, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 1 ; State v. Pigques, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 942 ; State v. Phillips, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 431 ; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193 , 36 S.W.2d 923 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nevinger v. Haun
green
2 sentences1968In Spain v. Burch, 169 *638 Mo.App. 94, 108, 154 S.W. 172, 176 , the court said: “ * * * But this doctrine has not been, and should not be, carried to the extent that, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the failure to do any act, and the defendant’s evidence that he did do it is uncontra-dicted, then the jury may not only disbelieve his evidence, but may take such disbelief as supplying- the lack of affirmative evidence required of plaintiff.” In Fausette v. Grim, 193 Mo.App. 585 , 186 S.W. 1177 , the court said: “ * * * As said in Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 108 , 154 S.W. 172 , pla 1968In Spain v. Burch, 169 *638 Mo.App. 94, 108, 154 S.W. 172, 176 , the court said: “ * * * But this doctrine has not been, and should not be, carried to the extent that, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the failure to do any act, and the defendant’s evidence that he did do it is uncontra-dicted, then the jury may not only disbelieve his evidence, but may take such disbelief as supplying- the lack of affirmative evidence required of plaintiff.” In Fausette v. Grim, 193 Mo.App. 585 , 186 S.W. 1177 , the court said: “ * * * As said in Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 108 , 154 S.W. 172 , pla | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Spain v. Burch
green
2 sentences1968In Spain v. Burch, 169 *638 Mo.App. 94, 108, 154 S.W. 172, 176 , the court said: “ * * * But this doctrine has not been, and should not be, carried to the extent that, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the failure to do any act, and the defendant’s evidence that he did do it is uncontra-dicted, then the jury may not only disbelieve his evidence, but may take such disbelief as supplying- the lack of affirmative evidence required of plaintiff.” In Fausette v. Grim, 193 Mo.App. 585 , 186 S.W. 1177 , the court said: “ * * * As said in Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 108 , 154 S.W. 172 , pla 1968In Spain v. Burch, 169 *638 Mo.App. 94, 108, 154 S.W. 172, 176 , the court said: “ * * * But this doctrine has not been, and should not be, carried to the extent that, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the failure to do any act, and the defendant’s evidence that he did do it is uncontra-dicted, then the jury may not only disbelieve his evidence, but may take such disbelief as supplying- the lack of affirmative evidence required of plaintiff.” In Fausette v. Grim, 193 Mo.App. 585 , 186 S.W. 1177 , the court said: “ * * * As said in Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 108 , 154 S.W. 172 , pla | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Fausette ex rel. Johnson v. Grim
green
2 sentences1968In Spain v. Burch, 169 *638 Mo.App. 94, 108, 154 S.W. 172, 176 , the court said: “ * * * But this doctrine has not been, and should not be, carried to the extent that, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the failure to do any act, and the defendant’s evidence that he did do it is uncontra-dicted, then the jury may not only disbelieve his evidence, but may take such disbelief as supplying- the lack of affirmative evidence required of plaintiff.” In Fausette v. Grim, 193 Mo.App. 585 , 186 S.W. 1177 , the court said: “ * * * As said in Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 108 , 154 S.W. 172 , pla 1968In Spain v. Burch, 169 *638 Mo.App. 94, 108, 154 S.W. 172, 176 , the court said: “ * * * But this doctrine has not been, and should not be, carried to the extent that, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the failure to do any act, and the defendant’s evidence that he did do it is uncontra-dicted, then the jury may not only disbelieve his evidence, but may take such disbelief as supplying- the lack of affirmative evidence required of plaintiff.” In Fausette v. Grim, 193 Mo.App. 585 , 186 S.W. 1177 , the court said: “ * * * As said in Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 108 , 154 S.W. 172 , pla | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Cropper
green
2 sentences1965See State v. Thresher, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 1 ; State v. Pigques, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 942 ; State v. Phillips, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 431 ; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193 , 36 S.W.2d 923 . 1965See State v. Thresher, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 1 ; State v. Pigques, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 942 ; State v. Phillips, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 431 ; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193 , 36 S.W.2d 923 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Pigques
green
1 sentence1965See State v. Thresher, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 1 ; State v. Pigques, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 942 ; State v. Phillips, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 431 ; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193 , 36 S.W.2d 923 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence1965See State v. Thresher, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 1 ; State v. Pigques, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 942 ; State v. Phillips, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 431 ; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193 , 36 S.W.2d 923 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Warner v. Veitch
green
1 sentence1962This has long been the rule in Missouri, Warner v. Veitch, 2 Mo.App. 459 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Dalton v. Peters
green
1 sentence1962The surplus would have been impressed with a trust in favor of the mortgagor, Dalton v. Peters, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 494 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Rohback v. Pacific Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1909In the early case of Rohback v. Railroad, 43 Mo. 187 , it was held that employees did not fall within the purview and meaning of such statute, and that a failure to comply with such statute was not negligence toward an employee, who was in that case a laborer on the tracks at the foot of Jefferson street in Jefferson City. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Scruggs v. Scruggs
neutral
1 sentence1902It was sufficient if his possession was adverse, open, notorious, under claim of ownership of the property for the period of ten consecutive years, next preceding the institution of this suit.” And this has long been the rule in this State, whether the claim asserted be to an easement or to the whole fee simple, especially where the nature of the possession is necessary notice of the claim. [Scruggs v. Scruggs, 43 Mo. 142 ; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. l. c. 446-7; Key v. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356 ; Leeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. l. c. 405; Hargis v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 210 ; Turner v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 547 ; W | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Key v. Jennings
neutral
1 sentence1902It was sufficient if his possession was adverse, open, notorious, under claim of ownership of the property for the period of ten consecutive years, next preceding the institution of this suit.” And this has long been the rule in this State, whether the claim asserted be to an easement or to the whole fee simple, especially where the nature of the possession is necessary notice of the claim. [Scruggs v. Scruggs, 43 Mo. 142 ; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. l. c. 446-7; Key v. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356 ; Leeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. l. c. 405; Hargis v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 210 ; Turner v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 547 ; W | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Hargis v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1902It was sufficient if his possession was adverse, open, notorious, under claim of ownership of the property for the period of ten consecutive years, next preceding the institution of this suit.” And this has long been the rule in this State, whether the claim asserted be to an easement or to the whole fee simple, especially where the nature of the possession is necessary notice of the claim. [Scruggs v. Scruggs, 43 Mo. 142 ; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. l. c. 446-7; Key v. Jennings, 66 Mo. 356 ; Leeper v. Baker, 68 Mo. l. c. 405; Hargis v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 210 ; Turner v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 547 ; W | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.