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 1 courts 1910–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
Owings v. Whitegreen2 sentences1983Owings v. White, 391 S.W.2d 195 , 197—198[1—3] (Mo. banc 1965). 1966In remand cases, however, it is reasonably certain the appellate judicial spoon that ladles sauce on plaintiff’s goose seldom, if ever, sops the defendant’s gander, for “if a plaintiff obtained a judgment without error, the defendant could not have it reversed and remanded on the theory that he might make a better defense on retrial.” Owings v. White, Mo. (banc), 391 S.W.2d 195, 197 ; Nussbaum v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine, Mo., 359 S.W.2d 335, 342 (8). | 2 | 4 |
Surface Ex Rel. Surface v. Ranger Insurance Co.green1 sentence1977This contention was fully answered in Surface v. Ranger Insurance Company, 526 S.W.2d 44, 49 [6, 7] (Mo.App.1975) when the court stated: If, on the other hand, the respondent had obtained a judgment without error, we have no power to reverse and remand in order to allow the appellant to pursue a different theory, whether it be a theory of recovery or of defense. | 1 | 1 |
Nussbaum v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Mainegreen1 sentence1966In remand cases, however, it is reasonably certain the appellate judicial spoon that ladles sauce on plaintiff’s goose seldom, if ever, sops the defendant’s gander, for “if a plaintiff obtained a judgment without error, the defendant could not have it reversed and remanded on the theory that he might make a better defense on retrial.” Owings v. White, Mo. (banc), 391 S.W.2d 195, 197 ; Nussbaum v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine, Mo., 359 S.W.2d 335, 342 (8). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. M. J. Gorzik Corp. v. Mosman
green
1 sentence1996Mosman, 315 S.W.2d at 214 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Windsor v. McVeigh
green
2 sentences1910So, in keeping with this construction of the constitutional provision in question, it has been decided that although a party has been duly notified of the proceedings against him, a court has not the power to condemn him after striking out his answer, since that is tantamount to condemnation without notice or hearing. [Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409 .] And the same view is stated where, on notice by publication, the party appeared and subsequently his appearance was stricken out and his right to appear denied and his property condemned, it was held to be a judgment without a hearing. [Windsor 1910So, in keeping with this construction of the constitutional provision in question, it has been decided that although a party has been duly notified of the proceedings against him, a court has not the power to condemn him after striking out his answer, since that is tantamount to condemnation without notice or hearing. [Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409 .] And the same view is stated where, on notice by publication, the party appeared and subsequently his appearance was stricken out and his right to appear denied and his property condemned, it was held to be a judgment without a hearing. [Windsor | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Hovey v. Elliott
green
1 sentence1910So, in keeping with this construction of the constitutional provision in question, it has been decided that although a party has been duly notified of the proceedings against him, a court has not the power to condemn him after striking out his answer, since that is tantamount to condemnation without notice or hearing. [Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409 .] And the same view is stated where, on notice by publication, the party appeared and subsequently his appearance was stricken out and his right to appear denied and his property condemned, it was held to be a judgment without a hearing. [Windsor | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.