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 1916–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moss v. Home Depot USA, Inc.green1 sentence2004Moss v. Home Depot USA Inc., 988 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc.green2 sentences1986In Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc., 18 Misc.2d 1 , 187 N.Y.S.2d 636, 641 [1] (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), reversed on other grounds, 9 A.D.2d 936 , 195 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1959), appeal denied, 10 A.D.2d 637 , 197 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1960), the court stated: It is quite obvious then that a joint claim is asserted against the defendants. 1986In Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc., 18 Misc.2d 1 , 187 N.Y.S.2d 636, 641 [1] (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), reversed on other grounds, 9 A.D.2d 936 , 195 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1959), appeal denied, 10 A.D.2d 637 , 197 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1960), the court stated: It is quite obvious then that a joint claim is asserted against the defendants. | 1 | 1 |
McClellan v. Sam Schwartz Pontiac, Inc.green1 sentence1964As to dismissal without prejudice, it has been said, “We think the law is well settled that the right to dismiss a cause of action without prejudice under section 510.130, V.A.M.S., is not an absolute right.” Smith v. Taylor, Mo.App., 289 S.W.2d 134, 140 ; see also McClellan v. Sam Schwartz Pontiac, Inc., Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 49 . | 1 | 1 |
Sharp v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.green2 sentences1957See also Sharp v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, 213 Mo. 517, 523 , 111 S.W. 1154, 1156 , where the question of defect of necessary parties plaintiff in a suit for wrongful death is discussed in connection with the contention that the petition did not allege that plaintiffs constituted all of the minor children of the deceased. 1957See also Sharp v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, 213 Mo. 517, 523 , 111 S.W. 1154, 1156 , where the question of defect of necessary parties plaintiff in a suit for wrongful death is discussed in connection with the contention that the petition did not allege that plaintiffs constituted all of the minor children of the deceased. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Benton Packaging, Inc. v. Allied Converters, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1986In Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc., 18 Misc.2d 1 , 187 N.Y.S.2d 636, 641 [1] (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), reversed on other grounds, 9 A.D.2d 936 , 195 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1959), appeal denied, 10 A.D.2d 637 , 197 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1960), the court stated: It is quite obvious then that a joint claim is asserted against the defendants. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1986In Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc., 18 Misc.2d 1 , 187 N.Y.S.2d 636, 641 [1] (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), reversed on other grounds, 9 A.D.2d 936 , 195 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1959), appeal denied, 10 A.D.2d 637 , 197 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1960), the court stated: It is quite obvious then that a joint claim is asserted against the defendants. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Feder v. Caliguira
neutral
2 sentences1986In Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc., 18 Misc.2d 1 , 187 N.Y.S.2d 636, 641 [1] (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), reversed on other grounds, 9 A.D.2d 936 , 195 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1959), appeal denied, 10 A.D.2d 637 , 197 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1960), the court stated: It is quite obvious then that a joint claim is asserted against the defendants. 1986In Freedman v. Montague Associates, Inc., 18 Misc.2d 1 , 187 N.Y.S.2d 636, 641 [1] (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), reversed on other grounds, 9 A.D.2d 936 , 195 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1959), appeal denied, 10 A.D.2d 637 , 197 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1960), the court stated: It is quite obvious then that a joint claim is asserted against the defendants. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Smith v. Taylor
green
1 sentence1964As to dismissal without prejudice, it has been said, “We think the law is well settled that the right to dismiss a cause of action without prejudice under section 510.130, V.A.M.S., is not an absolute right.” Smith v. Taylor, Mo.App., 289 S.W.2d 134, 140 ; see also McClellan v. Sam Schwartz Pontiac, Inc., Mo.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 49 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Citizens Banking Co. v. Monticello State Bank
green
2 sentences1957Citizens Banking Co. v. Monticello State Bank, 8 Cir., 143 F.2d. 261, 264 . 1957Citizens Banking Co. v. Monticello State Bank, 8 Cir., 143 F.2d. 261, 264 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Thompson v. Lindsay
green
1 sentence1916We see no reason why this case should be excepted from the general rule that an estoppel must be pleaded. [Thompson v. Lindsay, 242 Mo. 53 .] Appellant’s brief contains this: ‘ ‘ The two defendants in the Merritt case had an agreement, in the interests of a common joint defense, under which neither defendant would attempt to cast any primary liability upon the other.” There are several difficulties involved in that statement which counsel have overlooked: (a) That was not the proper place or time for the determination of the question of primary liability of either of the parties defendant ther | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.