6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Fishergreen2 sentences2003Co. v. Fisher, 88 Nev. 155 , 494 P.2d 549, 552 (1972)). 2003Co. v. Fisher, 88 Nev. 155 , 494 P.2d 549, 552 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
Arndt v. Davisgreen2 sentences2003The initial permission rule has been defined as follows: “if permission to use the automobile was initially given, recovery may be had regardless of the manner in which the automobile was thereafter used.” Id. at 591 (quoting Arndt v. Davis, 183 Neb. 726 , 163 N.W.2d 886, 888 (1969)). 2003The initial permission rule has been defined as follows: “if permission to use the automobile was initially given, recovery may be had regardless of the manner in which the automobile was thereafter used.” Id. at 591 (quoting Arndt v. Davis, 183 Neb. 726 , 163 N.W.2d 886, 888 (1969)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLartygreen1 sentence1970See State v. McLarty, Mo., 414 S.W.2d 315, 318 [5]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McRaven v. F-Stop Photo Labs, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989They rely principally upon McRaven v. F-Stop Photo Labs, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 459 (Mo.App.1983) in which the court was faced with reconciling two exclusionary clauses separated by nine other exclusionary clauses within an insurance policy, each clause containing an exclusion to its exclusion. 1989They rely principally upon McRaven v. F-Stop Photo Labs, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 459 (Mo.App.1983) in which the court was faced with reconciling two exclusionary clauses separated by nine other exclusionary clauses within an insurance policy, each clause containing an exclusion to its exclusion. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
1 sentence2003Courts also have recognized that application will discourage collusion between bailor and bailee in order to escape liability; and courts have noted that [it] will greatly reduce a most costly and wasteful type of litigation.” Commercial Union, 745 S.W.2d at 593 (quoting Mil-bank, 332 N.W.2d at 166 .) In adopting the rule, the Arkansas court further pointed to the rationale of the Illinois court in adopting the initial permission rule, that “[a] liability insurance policy is for the benefit of the public as well as for the benefit of the named insured and that it is undesirable to permit litig | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Commercial Union Insurance v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2003Co. v. Johnson, 294 Ark. 444 , 745 S.W.2d 589 (1988), the seminal case on this point, the Arkansas Supreme Court recognized and adopted the initial permission rule. 2003Co. v. Johnson, 294 Ark. 444 , 745 S.W.2d 589 (1988), the seminal case on this point, the Arkansas Supreme Court recognized and adopted the initial permission rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schmidt v. Keane
green
1 sentence1992Having done so, [Regents] owed as a matter of law a duty to the travelling public to maintain what it built.” In support of this theory, the City relies mainly on Schmidt v. Keane, 810 S.W.2d 701 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
McKee Ex Rel. Burton v. Travelers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1979McKee v. Travelers Insurance Company, 315 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.App.1958); Annot. 5 A.L.R.2d 600 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.