Beasley v. Mironuck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim that at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harmon v. Headley · Presson v. Presson

2. “The trustees argue that Rule 55.32(a) is not applicable because “at the time of the serving of the pleading” they had not incurred all the costs of defending the declaratory judgment action. This argument misconstrues the language and the intent of the rule. It has been held that a claim falls within the limits of the compulsory counterclaim rule if it has “matured” at the time of the pleading and for this purpose “matured” has the same meaning as the word “accrued” in statutes of limitations. Knight v. M.H. Siegfried Real Estate, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 811, 813-14 (Mo.App.1982). Therefore, a counterclaim has accrued and is fully matured when the damage resulting therefrom is sustained and is capable of ascertainment. Woodruff v. McMillan, 752 S.W.2d 493,496 (Mo.App.1988); Myers [v. Clayco State Bank], 687 S.W.2d [256] at 263 [ (Mo.App.1985) ]. “Ascertainment” refers to the fact of damage rather than to the precise amount. Woodruff, 752 S.W.2d at 496 . The moment the trustees consults ed attorneys to undertake the defense of the original declaratory judgment action, their claim for attorney’s fees and expenses under paragraph 13(i) of the Trust Agreement came into existence. Rule 55.32(a) required that this claim be asserted at the time their pleading was served against plaintiffs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Port v. Maple Tree Investments, Inc.

3. “The compulsory counterclaim rule is simply the codification of the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Claims and issues which could have been litigated in a prior adjudicated action are precluded in a later action between the same parties or those in privity with them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Joel Bianco Kawasaki Plus v. Meramec Valley Bank