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

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).