6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Betts-Lucas v. Hartmanngreen2 sentences2014Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442, 447, 449 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (finding that sovereign immunity was "simply not applicable” and therefore did not bar an inmate's petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment of judgment under the State Legal Expense Fund for a state employee’s sexual assault of the inmate); Betts-Lucas, 87 S.W.3d at 327-28 (reiterating the findings in Dixon that the Fund constitutes a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgment or claims against state employees, and as such, sovereign immunity is not an issue in a claim by a plaintiff seeking recovery from the Stat 2014Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442, 447, 449 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (finding that sovereign immunity was “simply not applicable” and therefore did not bar an inmate‟s petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment of judgment under the State Legal Expense Fund for a state employee‟s sexual assault of the inmate); Betts-Lucas, 87 S.W.3d at 327-28 (reiterating the findings in Dixon that the Fund constitutes a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgment or claims against state employees, and as such, sovereign immunity is not an issue in a claim by a plaintiff seeking recovery from the S | 2 | 3 |
Cottey v. Schmittergreen2 sentences2014Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442, 447, 449 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (finding that sovereign immunity was "simply not applicable” and therefore did not bar an inmate's petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment of judgment under the State Legal Expense Fund for a state employee’s sexual assault of the inmate); Betts-Lucas, 87 S.W.3d at 327-28 (reiterating the findings in Dixon that the Fund constitutes a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgment or claims against state employees, and as such, sovereign immunity is not an issue in a claim by a plaintiff seeking recovery from the Stat 2014Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442, 447, 449 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (finding that sovereign immunity was “simply not applicable” and therefore did not bar an inmate‟s petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment of judgment under the State Legal Expense Fund for a state employee‟s sexual assault of the inmate); Betts-Lucas, 87 S.W.3d at 327-28 (reiterating the findings in Dixon that the Fund constitutes a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgment or claims against state employees, and as such, sovereign immunity is not an issue in a claim by a plaintiff seeking recovery from the S | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Cravens v. Nixongreen2 sentences2014Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442, 447, 449 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (finding that sovereign immunity was "simply not applicable” and therefore did not bar an inmate's petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment of judgment under the State Legal Expense Fund for a state employee’s sexual assault of the inmate); Betts-Lucas, 87 S.W.3d at 327-28 (reiterating the findings in Dixon that the Fund constitutes a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgment or claims against state employees, and as such, sovereign immunity is not an issue in a claim by a plaintiff seeking recovery from the Stat 2014Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442, 447, 449 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (finding that sovereign immunity was “simply not applicable” and therefore did not bar an inmate‟s petition for writ of mandamus to compel payment of judgment under the State Legal Expense Fund for a state employee‟s sexual assault of the inmate); Betts-Lucas, 87 S.W.3d at 327-28 (reiterating the findings in Dixon that the Fund constitutes a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgment or claims against state employees, and as such, sovereign immunity is not an issue in a claim by a plaintiff seeking recovery from the S | 2 | 2 |
Dixon v. Holdengreen2 sentences2007“The Fund is merely a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgments or claims against state employee (sic) sued for their conduct arising out of and performed in connection with official duties on behalf of the state.” Dixon v. Holden, 923 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Mo.App. 2007“The legislative provisions creating the Legal Defense Fund constitute[ ] ‘a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of judgments or claims against state employees sued for their conduct arising out of and performed in connection with official duties on behalf of the state.’ ” Id. at 327-28 (quoting Dixon I, 923 S.W.2d at 379 ). “[Sovereign immunity [is] not available as a defense by the State to actions seeking recovery from the [Legal Expense] Fund, given that the underlying litigation is against state employees, rather than the state itself.” Id. at 320. 5 Nothing in the revised languag | 1 | 4 |
State ex rel. Koster v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissionersgreen1 sentence2020The Legal Expense Fund operates as “a voluntary assumption of defense and payment of claims against State employees sued for their conduct arising out of and performed in connection with official duties on behalf of the state.” Id. at 194-95 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.