Glass v. State, 14 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Glass v. State, 14 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Radford v. Loancare, LLC (moed, 2023-05-02)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Loudermilk
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · confidence medium
Count V – Slander of Title “Under Missouri law, a claim of slander of title requires the plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) some interest in the property, (2) that the words published were false, (3) that the words were maliciously published, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss or injury as a result of the false statement.” Jeffrey v. Cathers, 104 S.W.3d 424, 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Radford v. Loancare, LLC
E.D. Mo. · 2023 · confidence medium
She must prove four elements to prevail on her claim: “(1) an interest in the property, (2) that the words published were false, (3) ‘that the words were maliciously published,’ and (4) that [she] ‘suffered pecuniary loss’ ‘as a result of the false statement.’ ” Erickson v. Nationstar Mortg., 31 F.4th 1044, 1048 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)); see also Tongay v. Franklin Cnty.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boyd v. Pulaski Bank (Busey Bank)
E.D. Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
To bring a slander of title claim under Missouri law, a plaintiff must allege that it has: “1) some interest in the property, 2) that the words published were false, 3) that the words were maliciously published, and 4) that [it] suffered pecuniary loss or injury as a result of the false statement.” Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Kennedy v. Kennedy, 819 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erickson Cabin, LLC v. Busey Bank (2×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Under Missouri law, a plaintiff must prove four elements for a slander of title claim: (1) an interest in the property, (2) that the words published were false, (3) “that the words were maliciously published,” and (4) that the plaintiff “suffered pecuniary loss” “as a result of the false statement.” Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo. App. 2000); see Arbors at Sugar Creek Homeowners Ass’n v. Jefferson Bank & Tr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Erickson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
E.D. Mo. · 2021 · confidence medium
Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brenda Dumler v. The Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Id. “‘[A] claim of slander of title requires the plaintiff to demonstrate: 1) some interest in the property, 2) that the words published were false, 3) that the words were maliciously published, and 4) that he suffered pecuniary loss or injury as a result of the false statement.’” Eckel v. Eckel, 540 S.W.3d 476, 485 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) First National Bank of St. Louis v. Ricon, Inc.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jeffrey v. Cathers
Mo. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Bechtle v. Adbar Co., L.C., 14 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Mo.App.E.D.2000).
Wilbur GLASS
v.
STATE of Missouri
No. ED 76730.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Apr 4, 2000.
14 S.W.3d 725
Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Catherine Chatman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Crahan, Gaertner, Russell.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wilbur Glass (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. We have previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for two counts of the class C felony of forgery in violation of section 570.090, RSMo 1994. State v. Glass, 964 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App. E.D.1998).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).