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 1984–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.green1 sentence2017Blanks, 450 S.W.3d at 400 (citing Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104, 110 (Mo. banc 1996)) (explaining that punitive damages require a higher standard of proof because they are “extraordinary- and harsh.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hiles
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2004Id. | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Trefney v. National Super Markets, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998The plaintiff must prove the doctrine’s three elements: “(1) the incident resulting in injury is of the kind which ordi *394 narily does not occur 'without someone’s negligence; (2) the incident is caused by an instrumentality under the control of the defendant; and (3) the defendant has superior knowledge about the cause of the incident.” Trefney, 803 S.W.2d at 121 . 1992The plaintiff must prove the doctrine’s three elements: “(1) the incident resulting in injury is of the kind which ordinarily does not occur without someone’s negligence; (2) the incident is caused by an instrumentality under the control of the defendant; and (3) the defendant has ' superior knowledge about the cause of the incident.” Trefney, 803 S.W.2d at 121 . | 2 | 1992–1998 |
Patrick Blanks v. Fluor Corporation
green
1 sentence2017Blanks, 450 S.W.3d at 400 (citing Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104, 110 (Mo. banc 1996)) (explaining that punitive damages require a higher standard of proof because they are “extraordinary- and harsh.”). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
John R. Boyce Family Trust v. Snyder
green
1 sentence2008“The plaintiff must prove his claim, both the fact of wrongful taking and any tracing, by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Mahler v. Tieman
green
1 sentence1984Mahler v. Tieman, 550 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.App.1977). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.