6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Newcomb v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroadgreen2 sentences1980At least some of the reasons originally offered for the rule of joint and several liability in Missouri have “vanished long since.” In Newcomb v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co., 169 Mo. 409, 426 , 69 S.W. 348, 353 (1902), the Court quoted Bishop, Noncontract Law § 518, for “the reason underlying the rule” of joint and several liability: [SJince the habitations and life of man are in the midst of constantly active forces in nature, and his necessities compel him to be perpetually active also, it is not possible in jurisprudence, nor would it be just to limit one’s responsibility 1980At least some of the reasons originally offered for the rule of joint and several liability in Missouri have “vanished long since.” In Newcomb v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co., 169 Mo. 409, 426 , 69 S.W. 348, 353 (1902), the Court quoted Bishop, Noncontract Law § 518, for “the reason underlying the rule” of joint and several liability: [SJince the habitations and life of man are in the midst of constantly active forces in nature, and his necessities compel him to be perpetually active also, it is not possible in jurisprudence, nor would it be just to limit one’s responsibility | 1 | 1 |
Roth v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence1932See Roth v. District of Columbia, 16 App. D.C. 323 ; Palmer v. District of Columbia, 26 App. D.C. 31 , 1 L.R.A. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J. W. Jenkins Sons Music Co. v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2013“The reason underlying the rule is to give stability to written agreements and to remove the temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if parol evidence was admissible.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ricardi v. Gaboury
green
1 sentence1950If the chancery court has the power to sell, it would have the power to lease; * * * ’ ’ Again, in Ricardi et al. v. Gaboury et al., 115 Tenn. 484 , 89 S.W. 98 , it was held that the court had power to authorize a lease of infant’s real estate for ninety-nine years. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Palmer v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1932See Roth v. District of Columbia, 16 App. D.C. 323 ; Palmer v. District of Columbia, 26 App. D.C. 31 , 1 L.R.A. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Pacific Railroad v. Governor
neutral
1 sentence1907The principle was ably and exhaustively discussed by Judge Scott in Pacific Railroad v. The Governor, 23 Mo. 353 , where it was held that courts have no power to look “behind the statute roll in order to determine whether in passing a law the members of the Legislature conformed their conduct to the rules directed by the Constitution to be observed in framing laws,” and accordingly, it was further held that the journals of the houses of the Legislature were not competent evidence to impeach the statute roll which was declared to he “a record of so high nature that it imports absolute verity an | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Ball v. Fagg
neutral
1 sentence1907The principle was ably and exhaustively discussed by Judge Scott in Pacific Railroad v. The Governor, 23 Mo. 353 , where it was held that courts have no power to look “behind the statute roll in order to determine whether in passing a law the members of the Legislature conformed their conduct to the rules directed by the Constitution to be observed in framing laws,” and accordingly, it was further held that the journals of the houses of the Legislature were not competent evidence to impeach the statute roll which was declared to he “a record of so high nature that it imports absolute verity an | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Waldhier v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1904The principle of law invoked by the defendant is well settled in this State. [Gurley v. Railroad, 93 Mo. 445 ; Waldhier v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 514 ; Bohn v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 433 ; Hite v. Railroad, 130 Mo. 132 ; Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. l. c. 74; Raming v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 477 .] The reason underlying the rule is that such cases do not show a mere variance between the allegata and probata, but they amount to a total failure of proof. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Gurley v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1904The principle of law invoked by the defendant is well settled in this State. [Gurley v. Railroad, 93 Mo. 445 ; Waldhier v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 514 ; Bohn v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 433 ; Hite v. Railroad, 130 Mo. 132 ; Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. l. c. 74; Raming v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 477 .] The reason underlying the rule is that such cases do not show a mere variance between the allegata and probata, but they amount to a total failure of proof. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Hite v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1904The principle of law invoked by the defendant is well settled in this State. [Gurley v. Railroad, 93 Mo. 445 ; Waldhier v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 514 ; Bohn v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 433 ; Hite v. Railroad, 130 Mo. 132 ; Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. l. c. 74; Raming v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 477 .] The reason underlying the rule is that such cases do not show a mere variance between the allegata and probata, but they amount to a total failure of proof. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Raming v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1904The principle of law invoked by the defendant is well settled in this State. [Gurley v. Railroad, 93 Mo. 445 ; Waldhier v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 514 ; Bohn v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 433 ; Hite v. Railroad, 130 Mo. 132 ; Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. l. c. 74; Raming v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 477 .] The reason underlying the rule is that such cases do not show a mere variance between the allegata and probata, but they amount to a total failure of proof. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.