res judi-cata doctrine (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

res judi-cata doctrine in Missouri

7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2010 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Jordan v. Kansas Citygreen
moctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001“The doctrine of res judi-cata bars a claim if the following elements are satisfied: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons or parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Jordan v. Kansas City, 929 S.W.2d 882, 886 (Mo.App.1996).

11
Stolfus v. Musselman & Hall Construction, Inc.green
moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993See, e.g., Stolfus v. Musselman & Hall Constr., Inc., 845 S.W.2d 565 (Mo.App.1992) (court dismissing plaintiffs cause of action without prejudice upon motion of plaintiff and holding that such dismissal does not bar a subsequent suit under doctrine of res judi-cata).

11
Agnew v. Union Construction Companygreen
mo · 1956 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974
1 sentence

1974“If the judgment is not binding on both it binds neither.” Agnew v. Union Construction Company, 291 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Mo.1956).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield green
mo · 2002
1 sentence

2010Chesterfield Vill., 64 S.W.3d at 318-19 .

12010–2010
Winter v. Northcutt green
moctapp · 1994
1 sentence

1996Id.

11996–1996
Norval v. Whitesell green
mo · 1980
1 sentence

1994If No. 17260 was an action to quiet title, the portions of comments c and d from Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 33, quoted earlier, demonstrate that the usual res judicata consequences of a judgment apply (assuming arguendo that the four elements set forth in Norval, 605 S.W.2d at 790 , are present).

11994–1994
Cimasi v. City Of Fenton, Missouri green
ca8 · 1988
1 sentence

1994Consistent with Cimasi, 838 F.2d at 299 , we hold that if No. 17260 was, as Plaintiff contends, an action for declaratory relief, the request in the prayer for an order commanding Defendants to file a release of the Notice with the Recorder of Pemiscot County renders No. 17260 ineligible for the res judi-cata exception applicable to judgments in actions seeking only declaratory relief.

11994–1994
Terre Du Lac Ass'n v. Terre Du Lac, Inc. green
moctapp · 1987
1 sentence

1994Id.

11994–1994

Where else courts name it

TX 10 (1971–2014) MO 7 (1974–2010) WY 7 (1968–2015) AL 6 (1992–2015) FL 4 (2002–2014) CT 4 (2005–2022) ME 4 (2010–2016) PA 4 (1971–2016) OK 3 (1931–2015) DC 3 (1997–2002) ND 3 (1992–2008) MS 2 (2015–2016) UT 2 (2007–2016) CO 2 (1996–2014) IN 2 (1998–2015) NC 2 (2000–2004) TN 2 (2006–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check