Missouri Court of Appeals· 3/10/1998

Hoag v. McBride & Son Inv. Co., Inc.

Citations

967 S.W.2d 157
1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 433
1998 WL 99343

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that any benefited landowner may enforce a restrictive covenant by seeking to enjoin the improper use of the burdened land
refusing to declare the plaintiff the prevailing party where the plaintiff only succeeded on a claim that a covenant was created, but lost the five remaining claims based upon who retained title under the covenant
\it is impossible to be negligent in failing to ascertain the truth or falsity of one's own future intentions\
“Missouri courts have defined a prevailing party as the party prevailing on the main issue, even though not necessarily to the extent of its original contention.”
“[E]quitable estoppel is an affirmative defense ... a plaintiff may not use estoppel as a basis for a cause of action.” (citing Exchange National Bank v. Wolken, 819 S.W.2d 45, 47-48 (Mo. 1991)); Peoples Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 514 S.W.2d 400, 406 (Ark. 1974
covenant concerning land, misrepresentation claims, and dedication claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ahrens, Crandall, Karohl

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.