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 1992–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Major v. McCallistergreen1 sentence2021Rather, “an outbound forum selection clause should be enforced unless it is unfair or unreasonable to do so.” Burke, 114 S.W.3d at 279 -80 (citing High Life Sales, 823 S.W.2d at 497 ); see also Major v. McCallister, 302 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Chase Third Century Leasing Co., Inc. v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1992See also Chase Third Century Leasing Co., Inc. v. Williams, 782 S.W.2d 408 (Mo.App.1989), where the court again enforced an inbound clause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
High Life Sales Co. v. Brown-Forman Corp.
green
2 sentences2021Rather, “an outbound forum selection clause should be enforced unless it is unfair or unreasonable to do so.” Burke, 114 S.W.3d at 279 -80 (citing High Life Sales, 823 S.W.2d at 497 ); see also Major v. McCallister, 302 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). 2003In High Life Sales, the Court found enforcement of an outbound forum selection clause to be unreasonable 7 because the controlling substantive issue in the litigation, the application of the liquor distribution statute, Section 407.413 RSMo. 1986, involved a matter of important public *281 policy to Missouri that is heavily regulated by state government and varied from state to state. 823 S.W.2d at 497-498 . | 4 | 2000–2021 |
Burke v. Goodman
green
2 sentences2021Rather, “an outbound forum selection clause should be enforced unless it is unfair or unreasonable to do so.” Burke, 114 S.W.3d at 279 -80 (citing High Life Sales, 823 S.W.2d at 497 ); see also Major v. McCallister, 302 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). 2008Burke affirmed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss based on an outbound forum selection clause and stated that an order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo, with no further discussion of the standard of review. 114 S.W.3d 276, 278-79 . | 2 | 2008–2021 |
Scott v. Tutor Time Child Care Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021In Scott, the Western District of this Court held that an outbound forum selection clause should not be enforced due to similar “public policy” concerns raised by the Court, including a desire “[t]o avoid duplication of effort, and avoid potential problems of collateral estoppel or res judicata or inconsistent adjudications that could theoretically result from separating the trials of [the parties’] related claims.” Id. at 683 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Seals v. Callis
green
1 sentence2004The contract also contained an outbound forum selection clause specifying that “in the event of any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the agreement, or its breach, any legal proceeding shall be instituted in Davidson County, Tennessee.” Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
red
2 sentences2003The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a similar argument in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. stating, “The argument that [forum selection] clauses are improper because they tend to ‘oust’ a court of jurisdiction is hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction.” 407 U.S. 1, 12 , 92 S.Ct. 1907, 1914 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). 2003The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a similar argument in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. stating, “The argument that [forum selection] clauses are improper because they tend to ‘oust’ a court of jurisdiction is hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction.” 407 U.S. 1, 12 , 92 S.Ct. 1907, 1914 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State Ex Rel. Marlo v. Hess
green
1 sentence1992Mario v. Hess, 669 S.W.2d 291 (Mo.App.1984), the Eastern District distinguished the Gooseneck situation, which involves an outbound forum selection clause (one providing for trial outside of Missouri) from the inbound clause (one providing for trial in Missouri) at issue in Mario; the Mario court held that an inbound clause should be enforced so long as doing so is neither unfair nor unreasonable. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.