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.
6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Durbin v. Deitrickgreen1 sentence2013“Our review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo.” Durbin v. Deitrick, 323 S.W.3d 122, 125 (Mo. App. W.D.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Swan v. Ingersollgreen1 sentence2010See Bolt v. Giordano, 310 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Mo.App.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Baileygreen1 sentence2009Brown v. Bailey, 210 S.W.3d 397, 404 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Children International v. Ammon Painting Co.green2 sentences2008It sought only a new trial. [8] While the circuit court could have remitted the damages sua sponte—see, e.g., Children International v. Ammon Painting Company, 215 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Mo.App.2006)—that it did not is not a basis for error. 2008It sought only a new trial. 8 While the circuit court could have remitted the damages sua sponte — see, e.g., Children International v. Ammon Painting Company, 215 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Mo.App.2006) — that it did not is not a basis for error. | 1 | 1 |
Askew v. Browngreen1 sentence1976Such a motion to set aside a judgment is one that invokes the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere with the trial court’s action unless the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates an abuse of such discretion. *507 Cooper v. Armour and Co., 222 Mo.App. 1176 , 15 S.W.2d 946 , 951[3] (1929); Whitledge v. Anderson Air Activities, 276 S.W.2d 114, 116 [3] (Mo.1955); Askew v. Brown, 450 S.W.2d 446, 450 [6] (Mo.App.1970). | 1 | 1 |
Whitledge v. Anderson Air Activities, Inc.green1 sentence1976Such a motion to set aside a judgment is one that invokes the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere with the trial court’s action unless the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates an abuse of such discretion. *507 Cooper v. Armour and Co., 222 Mo.App. 1176 , 15 S.W.2d 946 , 951[3] (1929); Whitledge v. Anderson Air Activities, 276 S.W.2d 114, 116 [3] (Mo.1955); Askew v. Brown, 450 S.W.2d 446, 450 [6] (Mo.App.1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Karscig v. McConville
green
1 sentence2013In his sole point on appeal, Appellant asserts that the circuit court erred in granting Allstate’s motion for summary judgment because the MVFRL and the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Kar- scig v. McConville, 303 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. banc 2010), mandate that Allstate pay an additional $50,000 of stacked coverage under the theory that the Policy insured Simpson separately as a non-owner operator. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fischer v. City of Washington
green
1 sentence2010Thus, because Allstate has failed to demonstrate that the denial of its motion for summary judgment meets the exception to the general rule denying appellate review, see Fischer, 55 S.W.3d at 381 , we apply that general rule and deny Allstate’s points 9 and 10. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bell v. Patrons Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2003Bell, 816 P.2d at 408 . 8 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cooper v. Armour & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1976Such a motion to set aside a judgment is one that invokes the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere with the trial court’s action unless the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates an abuse of such discretion. *507 Cooper v. Armour and Co., 222 Mo.App. 1176 , 15 S.W.2d 946 , 951[3] (1929); Whitledge v. Anderson Air Activities, 276 S.W.2d 114, 116 [3] (Mo.1955); Askew v. Brown, 450 S.W.2d 446, 450 [6] (Mo.App.1970). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.