Nitro Distributing, Inc. v. Dunn, No. SC 86854.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtStephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
Citation194 S.W.3d 339
Decision Date02 May 2006
Docket NumberNo. SC 86854.
PartiesNITRO 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
82 practice notes
  • In re Heartland Payment Sys., Inc., MDL No. 09–2046.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • December 1, 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 13, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 12, 2018
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 19, 2016
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • December 1, 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 13, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 12, 2018
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 19, 2016
    ...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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT