ambiguity rule (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

ambiguity rule in Missouri

6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2020 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Kilgore v. Stategreen
mo · 1990 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1991–2001
2 sentences

2001However, the court explained that if, in a habeas corpus proceeding, Kilgore were to plead and prove facts showing he was entitled to post-conviction relief and that the failure "to timely file a verified Rule 29.15 motion was not attributable to movant’s intentional or negligent conduct and was due entirely to an ambiguity in the rule, coupled with abandonment by appointed counsel, the question would be whether, in such limited circumstances, Rule 29.15 provided an adequate post-conviction remedy.” Id.

1991In Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Mo. banc 1990), this Court suggested that in the limited situations in which Rule 29.15 might fail to provide an adequate remedy as a result of an ambiguity in the rule and abandonment by appointed counsel, a state habeas corpus proceeding might lie.

12
Behrens v. City of New Yorkgreen
nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Behrens v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 407 , 720 N.Y.S.2d 64, 65 (2001) (despite “the insurer’s typographical error in referring in the subject endorsement to exclusion ‘J’ instead of ‘E,’ ” finding no ambiguity where “the exclusionary import of the endorsement is clear and, indeed, ‘susceptible of only one interpretation’ ” *74 (citation omitted)); Smith v. Cont’l Cas.

2011See Behrens v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 407 , 720 N.Y.S.2d 64, 65 (2001) (despite “the insurer’s typographical error in referring in the subject endorsement to exclusion ‘J’ instead of ‘E,’ ” finding no ambiguity where “the exclusionary import of the endorsement is clear and, indeed, ‘susceptible of only one interpretation’ ” *74 (citation omitted)); Smith v. Cont’l Cas.

11
Hill v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Insurance Companygreen
moctapp · 1963 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
1 sentence

1973Co., 374 S.W.2d 606, 611 [8] (Mo.App.1963)], with adoption of the construction most favorable to the insured or other beneficiary.

11
J. E. Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co.green
· 1943 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co., 351 Mo. 932 , 174 S.W.2d 862, 868 [9, 10], involving a clause providing for the payment of lessor’s income taxes as additional rent and stressed by plaintiff, where the court’s statement was based upon the ambiguity of the clause involved.

1959Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co., 351 Mo. 932 , 174 S.W.2d 862, 868 [9, 10], involving a clause providing for the payment of lessor’s income taxes as additional rent and stressed by plaintiff, where the court’s statement was based upon the ambiguity of the clause involved.

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
Shaffer v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co green
moctapp · 1995
1 sentence

2020Co., 903 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995) is misplaced because it was not necessary for that court to conduct an ambiguity analysis of “acquiring,” and thus does not hold the term unambiguous, nor does it hold the term is equivalent to “physical possession.” However, the facts and circumstances in this matter mandate a legal analysis of the term “acquiring” as used in this particular False Pretense policy, which is ambiguous because it is subject to two possible interpretations.

12020–2020

Where else courts name it

CA 23 (1938–2026) LA 12 (1940–2025) TX 12 (2000–2025) NJ 10 (1979–2020) PA 9 (1977–2026) MO 6 (1959–2020) WI 5 (1958–2008) CT 5 (1995–2024) DE 5 (2017–2026) NM 4 (2007–2023) MD 4 (1988–2014) IL 3 (1983–2023) IA 3 (2014–2016) MS 3 (1995–2003) MI 3 (1978–2003) NE 3 (1989–2000) OK 2 (1992–2004) HI 2 (2000–2005) UT 2 (2010–2018) WA 2 (1998–2006) KY 2 (2010–2013) NY 2 (1994–2026) IN 2 (1991–2001) AZ 2 (1987–2021) ND 2 (2012–2017) NH 2 (1983–2003) MA 2 (1995–2017) NC 2 (2021–2021) VT 2 (1990–2002)

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