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 1958–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ideker, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences2006In other words, “[t]o avoid an unjust result,” courts “refused to be circumscribed by the harshness of the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the principle of contract law that if performance is possible one is not entitled to extra compensation for unforeseen difficulties encountered.” Id. 1996The governmental entity, pragmatically speaking, gets the benefit of another contract, (emphasis is the court’s) Id. at 621 [2]. | 1 | 2 |
McCormick v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroadgreen1 sentence1993Co., 57 Mo. 433, 438 (1874)). 6 Later decisions assuaged the Court’s discomfort with the harshness of this doctrine by developing a series of mitigating exceptions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gustafson v. Benda
green
1 sentence1987Defendant states that entering judgment without aportionment of fault was erroneous “because contributory negligence was an affirmative defense in negligent misrepresentation cases before Gustafson v. Benda, [ 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983)] and Gustafson was intended to mitigate the harshness of the doctrine of contributory negligence.” Generally, comparative fault was adopted for Missouri in Gustafson . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Haferkamp v. City of Rock Hill
green
2 sentences1963Under the common law rule, or “common enemy doctrine,” each landowner has an unqualified right, by operations on his own land, to fend off surface waters as he sees fit without being required to take into account the consequences to other landowners, who have the duty and right to protect themselves as best they can, 51 Central Law Journal, 360; Haferkamp v. City of Rock Hill, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 620 . “ * * * Missouri has, however, as has all or substantially all of the other states purporting to follow the common enemy doctrine, modified the harshness of that doctrine. * * * ” Haferkamp v. City 1963Under the common law rule, or “common enemy doctrine,” each landowner has an unqualified right, by operations on his own land, to fend off surface waters as he sees fit without being required to take into account the consequences to other landowners, who have the duty and right to protect themselves as best they can, 51 Central Law Journal, 360; Haferkamp v. City of Rock Hill, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 620 . “ * * * Missouri has, however, as has all or substantially all of the other states purporting to follow the common enemy doctrine, modified the harshness of that doctrine. * * * ” Haferkamp v. City | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Blackburn v. Gaydou
green
2 sentences1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner “cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter.” In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that “one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servi-ent estate to its damage.” In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was s 1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner “cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter.” In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that “one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servi-ent estate to its damage.” In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was s | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Young v. Moore
green
2 sentences1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner "cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter." In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that "one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servient estate to its damage." In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was st 1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner “cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter.” In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that “one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servi-ent estate to its damage.” In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was s | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Clark v. City of Springfield
green
2 sentences1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner "cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter." In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that "one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servient estate to its damage." In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was st 1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner “cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter.” In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that “one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servi-ent estate to its damage.” In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was s | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Blydenburgh v. Amelung
green
2 sentences1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner "cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter." In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that "one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servient estate to its damage." In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was st 1958In Polich v. Hermann, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 849 , 855, it was stated that a landowner “cannot collect surface water into an artificial channel or volume, or precipitate it in greatly increased or unnatural quantities upon his neighbor, to the substantial injury of the latter.” In Clark v. City of Springfield, Mo.App., 241 S.W.2d 100, 105 , it was stated that “one should not artificially impound or collect surface water and cast it in increased and destructive quantities upon the servi-ent estate to its damage.” In the recent case of Blydenburgh v. Amelung, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 150, 152 , it was s | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.