Lehnig v. Bornhop

6 Citing cases

  1. Nangle v. Lauer

    98 F.3d 378 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that individual creditors of a bankruptcy estate do not have standing to assert claims of voidable transfers

    The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the five year statute of limitations in Section 516.120. The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed that Section 516.120 applied to the breach of fiduciary duty claim but reversed and remanded on grounds that the statute had not run. See also Lehnig v. Bornhop, 896 S.W.2d 714 (Mo.App. 1995) (reaffirming that five year statute of limitations applied); Vogel v. A.G. Edwards Sons, Inc., 801 S.W.2d 746 (Mo.App. 1990) (claim that broker breached fiduciary duty to clients governed by five year statute of limitations in Section 516.120); Southern Cross Lumber Millwork Co. v. Becker, 761 S.W.2d 269 (Mo.App. 1988) (claim that escrow agency breached fiduciary duty in disbursing funds governed by five year limitations period in Section 516.120). In addition, our own court has recently applied the Section 516.120 limitations period to a claim of breach of fiduciary duty.

  2. State v. Hamilton

    45 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

    The decision of the appellate court is the law of the case for all points decided by that court in any subsequent litigation. Id. The doctrine prevents issues decided on a first appeal from being readdressed on a second appeal. Lehnig v. Bornhop, 896 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Mo.App.E.D. 1995). If the matter could have been raised in the first appeal but was not, the law of the case precludes it from being addressed on the second appeal. Bellon Wrecking Salvage Company v. David Orf, Inc., 983 S.W.2d 541, 546 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998).

  3. Manzer v. Sanchez

    29 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    The rule of the law of the case is that, in general, the decision of an appellate court is the law of the case on all points presented and decided and remains the law of the case throughout all subsequent proceedings, both in the trial and appellate courts, and no questions involved and decided on the first appeal will be considered on a second appeal. Id.; Kansas City v. Keene Corp., 855 S.W.2d 360, 366 (Mo.banc 1993). The law of the case rule also applies to issues which arose prior to the first appeal and which might have been presented at the time but were not. Lehnig v. Bornhop, 896 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Mo.App.E.D. 1995). This court addressed the issue of whether Appellants' First Amended Petition stated a cause of action in Manzer I. See Manzer 985 S.W.2d at 940-42.

  4. Ironite Products Co., Inc. v. Samuels

    17 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 10 times

    The Samuels list the following as the "five criteria:" (1) the written document is a subsequent agreement; (2) the two agreements are on the same subject and were adopted for the same purpose and there was no separate consideration; (3) the subsequent written agreement is an integrated agreement; (4) the earlier agreement would be inconsistent with or would alter the subsequent writing; and (5) the subsequent written agreement is unambiguous. Under the law of the case doctrine, a "`former adjudication is not only the law of the case as to all questions directly raised and passed upon but it is also the law of the case as to matters which arose prior to the first appeal and which might have been raised thereon but which were not raised or presented.'"Bellon Wrecking Salvage Co., 983 S.W.2d at 546 (quoting Norris v. Bristow, 236 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Mo. 1951)); See Shahan v. Shahan, 988 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Mo.banc 1999); Lehnig v. Bornhop, 896 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Mo.App.E.D. 1995). Evidence received, with or without objection, that violates the parol evidence rule must be ignored and a decision must be made on the writing alone.

  5. Matter of Hoffmann, ED76476

    No. ED76476 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2000)

    The Samuels list the following as the "five criteria:" (1) the written document is a subsequent agreement; (2) the two agreements are on the same subject and were adopted for the same purpose and there was no separate consideration; (3) the subsequent written agreement is an integrated agreement; (4) the earlier agreement would be inconsistent with or would alter the subsequent writing; and (5) the subsequent written agreement is unambiguous. Under the law of the case doctrine, a "`former adjudication is not only the law of the case as to all questions directly raised and passed upon but it is also the law of the case as to matters which arose prior to the first appeal and which might have been raised thereon but which were not raised or presented.'"Bellon Wrecking Salvage Co., 983 S.W.2d at 546 (quoting Norris v. Bristow, 236 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Mo. 1951)); See Shahan v. Shahan, 988 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Mo.banc 1999); Lehnig v. Bornhop, 896 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Mo.App.E.D. 1995). Evidence received, with or without objection, that violates the parol evidence rule must be ignored and a decision must be made on the writing alone.

  6. Serafin v. Med 90, Inc.

    963 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 3 times
    In Serafin v. Med 90, Inc., 963 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998), the eastern district held that the doctrine of the law of the case was inapplicable to a finding of the trial court where the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment, rendering that judgment a nullity.

    Id. This court stated, "The trial court did not expressly decide there was an oral contract"; and directed the trial court upon remand to determine whether an oral contract existed. Id. Unless there is a change in the issues or evidence, a previous appellate court holding constitutes the law of the case and concludes any issues decided on remand or subsequent appeal. Lehnig v. Bornhop, 896 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). Furthermore, when a case is remanded with specific directions to the trial court, the trial court is bound to render judgment in conformity with the mandate.