terrorem clause (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

terrorem clause in Missouri

6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2020 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Chaney v. Coopergreen
moctapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2014–2016
2 sentences

2016Cf. Chaney v. Cooper, 954 S.W.2d 510, 519 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (an objection to the probate of a will based on the controlling effect of a second person’s will was not expressly prohibited by an in terrorem clause’s language concerning a contest or attack against the first person’s will).

2014Id. at 518-19 .

12
Krause v. Tullogreen
moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Section 456.4-420.3 Requires an Appellant be Aggrieved by a Trial Court Order to have Standing to Appeal that Order “In general, our courts have held that an executor, administrator or trustee is not aggrieved by a decree or judgment determining his duty and the rights of the beneficiaries, or both, and so has no such interest as will support an appeal, inasmuch as he is protected by the decree.” Matter of Heisserer, 797 S.W.2d 864, 869 (Mo.App. 1990); see also Krause v. Tullo, 835 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Mo.App. 1992) (finding that a personal representative of a decedent’s estate had no standing to

11
In Matter of Heisserergreen
moctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Section 456.4-420.3 Requires an Appellant be Aggrieved by a Trial Court Order to have Standing to Appeal that Order “In general, our courts have held that an executor, administrator or trustee is not aggrieved by a decree or judgment determining his duty and the rights of the beneficiaries, or both, and so has no such interest as will support an appeal, inasmuch as he is protected by the decree.” Matter of Heisserer, 797 S.W.2d 864, 869 (Mo.App. 1990); see also Krause v. Tullo, 835 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Mo.App. 1992) (finding that a personal representative of a decedent’s estate had no standing to

11
Murphy v. Carrongreen
mo · 1976 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014This appeal follows. 3 Standard of Review In reviewing a court-tried case, we are governed by the principles established in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

11
Tobias v. Kormangreen
moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Tobias v. Korman, 141 S.W.3d 468, 477 (Mo.App.

11
Cox v. Fishergreen
mo · 1959 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997A no-contest or forfeiture provision is to be enforced where it is clear that the trustor (or testator) intended that the conduct in question should forfeit a beneficiary’s interest under the indenture (or will).” Cox v. Fisher, 322 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Mo.1959).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Knichel green
moctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2020Knichel, 347 S.W.3d at 130 .

12020–2020

Where else courts name it

NY 46 (1899–2026) CA 29 (1956–2022) TX 29 (1968–2025) GA 26 (1962–2025) IL 10 (1998–2022) MI 7 (2008–2018) KS 6 (1966–2021) MO 6 (1997–2020) AR 6 (2007–2025) MA 4 (2010–2025) NJ 3 (1960–2021) OH 3 (1975–2022) CO 3 (2016–2016) TN 3 (2001–2024) MS 3 (2014–2022) AZ 3 (1979–2017) AL 3 (2002–2015) IA 2 (2020–2025) CT 2 (2022–2023) KY 2 (2013–2024) WA 2 (1973–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check