Lavin v. Carroll

8 Citing cases

  1. Custom Constr. Sol. v. B & P Constr., Inc.

    684 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court has broad discretion in allowing a party to re-open its case. Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994). [24] First, Gamma argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the letter of registration because Cannon failed to specifically plead it was registered with and had obtained a certificate of authority from Missouri’s Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Surveyors.

  2. Custom Constr. Sols. v. B & P Constr.

    No. ED111253 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2023)

    Pride v. Lamberg, 366 S.W.2d 441, 445 (Mo. Div. 2 1963). The trial court has broad discretion in allowing a party to re-open its case. Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994).

  3. Teets v. American Family

    272 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 44 times

    As with American Family's fourth and fifth points, we review a trial court's denial of a motion for remittitur for abuse of discretion when determining whether the jury's verdict exceeds "fair and reasonable compensation." Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994). We will interfere only when the verdict "is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience" of the court and "convinces the court that both the jury and the trial court abused their discretion."

  4. Hernandez v. Hernandez

    249 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 14 times

    The trial court has considerable discretion to allow a party to reopen the case, and we only reverse such decision "upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion." Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Mo.App. 1994). . . . .

  5. Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales

    215 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 65 times
    Declining to review whether a punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio of 34:1 on a common law fraud claim was excessive, pending the outcome of a further jury trial on damages

    This court reviews the trial court's failure to order remittitur solely for an abuse of discretion. Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Mo.App. 1994). An abuse of discretion occurs when a verdict is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the appellate court.

  6. Knifong v. Caterpillar, Inc.

    199 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    However, under § 537.068, the trial court may enter a remittitur order if, "after reviewing the evidence in support of the jury's verdict, the court finds that the jury verdict is excessive because the amount of the verdict exceeds fair and reasonable compensation for plaintiffs injuries and damages." Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Mo.App. 1994). On appeal, we review the trial court's denial of a motion or application for remittitur for an abuse of discretion.

  7. Kauffman v. Kauffman

    101 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times
    Finding a husband’s testimony coupled with other evidence constituted sufficient evidence that he acquired his interest in a company from his father by gift

    "The trial court has considerable discretion to allow a party to reopen the case," and this court will reverse the trial court's decision to do so only "`upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.'" In re Marriageof Burton , 975 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Lavin v. Carroll , 871 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Mo.App. 1994)). Husband does not allege how the court's decision to hear evidence of the tax cost of assets after the initial trial dates but prior to the entry of the final judgment dividing the parties' property constituted an abuse of discretion. Without such a showing, this court cannot say that the court's decision to do so, in and of itself, was erroneous.

  8. In re Marriage of Burton

    975 S.W.2d 953 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    The trial court has considerable discretion to allow a party to reopen the case, and we only reverse such decision "upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion." Lavin v. Carroll, 871 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Mo. App. 1994). Appellant contends he should have a right to reopen and present evidence regarding custody as the circumstances alleged occurred before the judgment and this might preclude him from presenting them in a motion to modify.