6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smock v. Associated Elec. Coop., Inc.green2 sentences2021Coop., Inc., 567 S.W.3d 211, 219 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). 2019Coop., Inc., 567 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). | 2 | 2 |
Cook v. DeSoto Fuels, Inc.green2 sentences2018We disagree. "[T]respass involves interference with the plaintiffs' possessory rights and requires an intentional act that results in a physical invasion of the plaintiffs' property...." Cook v. DeSoto Fuels, Inc. , 169 S.W.3d 94 , 102 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). 2012Similarly, in Cook v. DeSoto Fuels, Inc., our Eastern District noted that “‘[a] continuing trespass upon real property creates separate causes of action, which are barred only by the running of the statute against the successive trespasses, and not by the running of the statute from the time of the original trespass.’ ” 169 S.W.3d 94, 105 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2 |
Nolan v. Kolargreen2 sentences2019Nolan v. Kolar, 629 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982). 2019Nolan, 629 S.W.2d at 663 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Laclede Gas Co.
green
2 sentences2012“The continuing wrong rule was adopted by our Supreme Court in Davis v. Laclede Gas Co., 603 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. banc 1980).” Id. at 310. 2005The continuing wrong rule was adopted by our state’s Supreme Court in Davis v. Laclede Gas Co., 603 S.W.2d 554 (Mo.banc 1980). | 4 | 1997–2018 |
Basham v. City of Cuba
green
1 sentence2018"Nuisance is the unreasonable, unusual, or unnatural use of one's property so that it substantially impairs the right of another to peacefully enjoy his [or her] property." Miller v. City of Wentzville , 371 S.W.3d 54 , 57 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (quoting *222 Basham v. City of Cuba , 257 S.W.3d 650 , 653 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Auksarawrongrot v. St. Louis Labor Health Institute
green
1 sentence2018Louis Cmty. Ass'n v. Oak Bluff Pres. , 956 S.W.2d 305 , 310 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (quoting Vogel v. A.G. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miller v. City of Wentzville
green
1 sentence2018"Nuisance is the unreasonable, unusual, or unnatural use of one's property so that it substantially impairs the right of another to peacefully enjoy his [or her] property." Miller v. City of Wentzville , 371 S.W.3d 54 , 57 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (quoting *222 Basham v. City of Cuba , 257 S.W.3d 650 , 653 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
D'Arcy & Associates, Inc. v. K.P.M.G. Peat Marwick, L.L.P.
green
1 sentence2018In applying the continuing-wrong exception, this court has held that "[d]amages resulting from one completed, wrongful act, although they may continue to develop, are not adequate." D'Arcy , 129 S.W.3d at 30 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Vogel v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Louis Community Association, our Eastern District applied the continuing wrong rule to a failure to maintain pedestrian ramps and the grounds at a marina, finding that “[a] failure to maintain is a continuing wrong.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.