Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn, No. SC 86854.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. |
| Citation | 194 S.W.3d 339 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 86854. |
| Parties | NITRO DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al., Respondents, v. Jimmy V. DUNN, et al., Appellants. |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
82 practice notes
-
In re Heartland Payment Sys., Inc., MDL No. 09–2046.
...must limit itself to examining the contract language in determining third-party beneficiary status. In Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339 (Mo.2006), the court explained that, “[t]o be bound as a third-party beneficiary, the terms of the contract must clearly express intent to ......
-
Reid v. Doe Run Res. Corp., Nos. 12–1065
...832 (2009). Missouri recognizes an estoppel theory where the party must directly benefit from the contract. Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339, 348 (Mo.banc 2006). Nonsignatories can be bound to an arbitration agreement when they directly benefit from the agreement. Thomson–CSF, 6......
-
Perkinson v. Courson, NO. 4–17–0364
...party is not a beneficiary and that the parties contracted to benefit only themselves.’ " Id. (quoting Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn , 194 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Mo. 2006) ).¶ 79 In Missouri, the primary rule of contract interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intent of the parti......
-
Dodson v. Ferrara, No. SC 95151
...the legislature could take away the right to a jury trial in a common law or statutory cause of action. See Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339, 352 (Mo. banc 2006) (“In civil actions, of course, the right to trial by jury attaches only to actions at law for which damages may be aw......
Request a trial to view additional results
82 cases
-
In re Heartland Payment Sys., Inc., MDL No. 09–2046.
...must limit itself to examining the contract language in determining third-party beneficiary status. In Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339 (Mo.2006), the court explained that, “[t]o be bound as a third-party beneficiary, the terms of the contract must clearly express intent to ......
-
Reid v. Doe Run Res. Corp., Nos. 12–1065
...832 (2009). Missouri recognizes an estoppel theory where the party must directly benefit from the contract. Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339, 348 (Mo.banc 2006). Nonsignatories can be bound to an arbitration agreement when they directly benefit from the agreement. Thomson–CSF, 6......
-
Perkinson v. Courson, NO. 4–17–0364
...party is not a beneficiary and that the parties contracted to benefit only themselves.’ " Id. (quoting Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn , 194 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Mo. 2006) ).¶ 79 In Missouri, the primary rule of contract interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intent of the parti......
-
Dodson v. Ferrara, No. SC 95151
...the legislature could take away the right to a jury trial in a common law or statutory cause of action. See Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339, 352 (Mo. banc 2006) (“In civil actions, of course, the right to trial by jury attaches only to actions at law for which damages may be aw......
Request a trial to view additional results