82.210. Action for damages maintained, how. — No action shall be maintained against any city of this state which now has or may hereafter attain a population of one hundred thousand inhabitants, on account of any injuries growing out of any defect in the condition of any bridge, boulevard, street, sidewalk or thoroughfare in said city, until notice shall first have been given in writing to the mayor of said city, within ninety days of the occurrence for which such damage is claimed, stating the place where, the time when such injury was received, and the character and circumstances of the injury, and that the person so injured will claim damages therefor from such city.
Notes of Decisions
Henson v. City of Springfield, 524 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 73× “Defendant City filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff failed to give notice of her claimed injury to the mayor as required by section 82.210 1 for “any injuries growing out of any defect in the condition…”
State Ex Rel. Sasnett v. Moorhouse, 267 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 47× “§ 82.210, RSMo 2000. No party disputes that the City has a population of one hundred thousand inhabitants.”
Williams v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 31× “The City moved for summary judgment, citing Williams’ failure to give written notice of her claim to the mayor as mandated by Section 82.210, RSMo 1986. The circuit court sustained the motion and entered summary judgment.”
Findley v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 22× “The City moved to dismiss asserting that Findley had not complied with Section 82.210, RSMo 1986, which requires that a person so injured must give the mayor written notice of her claim within ninety days following her accident.”
Jones v. City of Kansas City, 15 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. 2000).
· cites it 30× “Because Jones failed to give the city notice of his claim under section 82.210 1 within 90 days of the accident, the trial court granted summary judgment for the city.”
Rhonda Potts v. City of St. Louis, 499 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 31× “The trial court found that Potts did not provide the City adequate notice of her injuries as required by Section 82.210, 1 which defeated her claim.”
Paula Diane Robinson v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 451 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 23× “Almost three years later, on October 15, 2013, the City filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to Appellant’s second amended petition, allowing it to add as an additional affirmative defense an assertion that Appellant had failed to comply *318 with the notice…”
Gates v. City of Springfield, 744 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “In the trial court and on appeal, plaintiff has argued that the subject matter of the charter provision has been preempted by the legislature, citing § 82.210, 1 which provides: No action shall be maintained against any city of this state which now has or may hereafter attain a…”
Travis v. Kansas City, 491 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. 1973).
· cites it 7× “*522 In this connection, Section 82.210, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., provides: “No action shall be maintained against any city of this state which now has or may hereafter attain a population of one hundred thousand inhabitants, on account of any injuries growing out of any defect in…”
Jones v. City of Kansas City, 643 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Appellant’s sole point charges the trial court erred in its failure to enter judgment for appellant because of respondent’s failure to provide proper notice to appellant, as required by § 82.210, RSMo 1978. Before discussion of appellant’s alleged error or the rationale of the…”
Dorlon v. City of Springfield, 843 S.W.2d 934 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “The City’s last three points contend the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict at the close of Plaintiffs’ case and all the evidence and denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because: (Point III) Plaintiffs’ notice letter sent under §…”
Waisblum v. City of St. Joseph, 928 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 16× “The City moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Waisblum failed to provide the City with ninety days notice of his intent to sue, as required by § 82.210. 1 The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on those grounds.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.