6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peerless Supply Co. v. Industrial Plumbing & Heating Co.green2 sentences2005W.D.1997) (quoting Peerless Supply, 460 S.W.2d at 666 ). 1997A party relying on the doctrine of estoppel has the burden of proving all the essential elements “by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Peerless Supply Company v. Industrial Plumbing & Heating Company, 460 S.W.2d 651, 666 (Mo.1970). | 1 | 2 |
Straub v. Tullgreen1 sentence2008Straub v. Tull, 128 S.W.3d 157, 159 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Director of Revenue v. Oliphantgreen1 sentence2005A party relying on the doctrine of estoppel has the burden to prove all essential elements of estoppel “ ‘by clear and satisfactory evidence.’ ” Dir. of Revenue v. Oliphant, 938 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Seitz v. Lemay Bank and Trust Co.green1 sentence2004Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, Seitz v. Lemay Bank and Trust Co., 959 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Mo. banc 1998), we observe that Respondent was born on February 22, 1967, to Appellant and Alice Tull (now Mondt). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lomax v. Sewell
green
1 sentence2004“However, when the running of the applicable statute of limitations is not admitted and turns on a jury question, a jury instruction is required and the failure of the party relying on the defense to request an instruction on the same constitutes an abandonment thereof, even though it was properly pled.” Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Angoff v. Mersman
green
1 sentence1999Angoff, 917 S.W.2d at 211 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hopkins v. Goose Creek Land Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1999Hogan, 840 S.W.2d at 235 ; Hopkins, 673 S.W.2d at 469 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hogan v. Armstrong World Industries
green
1 sentence1999Hogan, 840 S.W.2d at 235 ; Hopkins, 673 S.W.2d at 469 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State Ex Rel. Capital City Water Co. v. MIssouri Public Service Commission
green
1 sentence1999Capital City Water Co., 850 S.W.2d at 910 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.