Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 SW3D 337 - Cramer v. Smoot

Cramer v. Smoot’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc. · Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co. · Lynch v. Lynch · Baker v. City of Kansas City · Nicholson v. Nicholson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Applying these exceptions, dismissals without prejudice have been held ap-pealable in such cases where the dismissal was based on statutes of limitations, theories of estoppel, a plaintiffs lack of standing, failure of the petition to state a claim where the plaintiff chose not to plead further, failure of a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action to file the health care provider affidavit and the plaintiffs claims not being covered by the statute upon which the petition was based.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Under certain circumstances, however, "[a] dismissal without prejudice may operate to preclude a party from bringing another action for the same cause and may be res judicata of what the judgment actually decided[.j” This includes decisions that would effect a practical termination of the litigation in the "form cast” or in the plaintiff’s forum of choice, as well as situations in which "refiling of the petition at that time would have been a futile act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “general rule is that a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and, therefore, is not appealable.” Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Founchy Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1997); Doe v. Visionaire Corp., 13 S.W.3d 674, 676 (Mo. App.2000); see Cramer v. Smoot, 291 S.W.3d 337, 339-40 (Mo.App.2009). Under certain circumstances, however,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.