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 2 courts 1931–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.green2 sentences2002Louis Enterprises v. Powell, 807 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting Goldberg v. Charlie’s Chevrolet Inc., 672 S.W.2d 177, 178 (Mo.App.1984)); see also Hoelscher v. Schenewerk, 804 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Mo.App.1991). 1991The general rule is that a real estate sales contract with a contingency clause, such as that between the parties herein, contains “an implied obligation to use reasonable efforts in pursuing the financing set forth in the contract.” Goldberg v. Charlie’s Chevrolet, Inc., 672 S.W.2d 177, 178 (Mo.App.E.D.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Hoelscher v. Schenewerkgreen1 sentence2002Louis Enterprises v. Powell, 807 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting Goldberg v. Charlie’s Chevrolet Inc., 672 S.W.2d 177, 178 (Mo.App.1984)); see also Hoelscher v. Schenewerk, 804 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Grand & St. Louis Enterprises v. Powellgreen1 sentence2002Louis Enterprises v. Powell, 807 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting Goldberg v. Charlie’s Chevrolet Inc., 672 S.W.2d 177, 178 (Mo.App.1984)); see also Hoelscher v. Schenewerk, 804 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Berger v. McBride & Son Builders, Inc.green1 sentence1981Berger v. McBride & Sons Builders, 447 S.W.2d 18, 21 (Mo.App.1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hammerschmidt v. Boone County
green
1 sentence2013Hammerschmidt, 877 S.W.2d at 102 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Howard v. Youngman
green
2 sentences2008Id. “[I]n a real estate contract containing a contingency clause, upon the nonoccurrence of the condition (i.e., the buyers obtaining financing), the buyer is ipso facto excused from performance.” Id. 2008Id. “[I]n a real estate contract containing a contingency clause, upon the nonoccurrence of the condition (i.e., the buyers obtaining financing), the buyer is ipso facto excused from performance.” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Koontz v. Lee
green
1 sentence2002Koontz, 737 S.W.2d at 768 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Evans v. General Explosives Co.
green
2 sentences1931We held in Farm Mortgage & Loan Co., 271 S. W. 873 , that a so-called statement of facts, intermingled with parts of pleading and evidence, interspersed with argument, violates our rule 16, and that a statement of fact requiring a resort to the record for an understanding of the case, violates our rule 16, which was enacted pursuant to section 1611, Revised Statutes 1919, and requires a dismissal of the appeal.” The Supreme Court invokes a similar rule in Evans v. General Explosives Co., 293 Mo. 364, 373 , 239 S. W. 487 ; and in Kirby v. Balke, 306 Mo. 109 , 266 S. W. 704, 707 . 1931We held in Farm Mortgage & Loan Co., 271 S. W. 873 , that a so-called statement of facts, intermingled with parts of pleading and evidence, interspersed with argument, violates our rule 16, and that a statement of fact requiring a resort to the record for an understanding of the case, violates our rule 16, which was enacted pursuant to section 1611, Revised Statutes 1919, and requires a dismissal of the appeal.” The Supreme Court invokes a similar rule in Evans v. General Explosives Co., 293 Mo. 364, 373 , 239 S. W. 487 ; and in Kirby v. Balke, 306 Mo. 109 , 266 S. W. 704, 707 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Kirby v. Balke
green
2 sentences1931We held in Farm Mortgage & Loan Co., 271 S. W. 873 , that a so-called statement of facts, intermingled with parts of pleading and evidence, interspersed with argument, violates our rule 16, and that a statement of fact requiring a resort to the record for an understanding of the case, violates our rule 16, which was enacted pursuant to section 1611, Revised Statutes 1919, and requires a dismissal of the appeal.” The Supreme Court invokes a similar rule in Evans v. General Explosives Co., 293 Mo. 364, 373 , 239 S. W. 487 ; and in Kirby v. Balke, 306 Mo. 109 , 266 S. W. 704, 707 . 1931We held in Farm Mortgage & Loan Co., 271 S. W. 873 , that a so-called statement of facts, intermingled with parts of pleading and evidence, interspersed with argument, violates our rule 16, and that a statement of fact requiring a resort to the record for an understanding of the case, violates our rule 16, which was enacted pursuant to section 1611, Revised Statutes 1919, and requires a dismissal of the appeal.” The Supreme Court invokes a similar rule in Evans v. General Explosives Co., 293 Mo. 364, 373 , 239 S. W. 487 ; and in Kirby v. Balke, 306 Mo. 109 , 266 S. W. 704, 707 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.