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 2 courts 1916–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kenneth Ferguson v. Curators of Lincoln University, In Their Official Capacities, a/k/a Lincoln Universitygreen1 sentence2025Allen additionally relies on Ferguson v. Curators of Lincoln University, 498 S.W.3d 481, 490 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), to argue that discrimination might be considered a “factor” in his termination because D.H. and M.V.’s discriminatory intent could have passed to C.R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brittgreen1 sentence2010See State v. Britt, 286 S.W.3d 859, 861-62 (Mo.App.2009). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cobbgreen1 sentence1980See State v. Cobb, 484 S.W.2d 196, 199-200 (Mo. banc 1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
B. A. Walterman Company, an Ohio Corporation v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation
green
1 sentence1970A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania RR, 295 F.2d 627 (1961), where we held that compliance with the notice requirement in the bill of lading was mandatory and could not be satisfied either by a verbal claim or by actual notice of the damages received by the carrier. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Gailey v. Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co.
neutral
1 sentence1931Co., 98 Kan. 53, 55 .] Under the Kansas limitation statute a verbal claim is permissible, but it .is quite apparent that that statute is not like ours. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Kight v. Stephen Putney Shoe Co.
green
1 sentence1916A local sales agent has no authority, by virtue of that employment, to waive the provisions of the act. [Knight v. Stevens Shoe Co., 137 Ga. 493, 495 .] But it is insisted by counsel that the bulk sale act cannot be invoked or applied by an ordinary action of attachment provided for by the general statutes. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.