BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Nicholson v. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.

    463 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times

    The Nicholsons do not resurrect this view of Brewer and Robinson in their brief, and their failure to do so has abandoned the issue. BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.App.1990). Although the Nicholsons were not required to file a brief, because they did so and failed to respond to many of the points raised by Surrey, including this point, we can only assume that they have no basis for a contrary opinion.

  2. Roth v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France

    120 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 23 times
    Refusing to impute to an attorney his client's representations made in response to interrogatories and ruling, "Although an attorney is an agent of his or her client and acts as the client's alter ego, the converse is not true."

    Rule 74.01(b), however, has created an exception. It allows an appeal to proceed even in cases in which some defendants have not been served or have been served but not disposed of by the circuit court. See, e.g., Garrett v. Finnell, 999 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Mo.App. 1999); LCA Leasing Corp. v. Bolivar Professional Pharmacy, Inc., 901 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.App. 1995); BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 176 (Mo.App. 1990). If at least one party's claim has been fully resolved, that matter may be appealed so long as the circuit court declares that it saw no just reason for delaying an appeal. Beckmann v. Miceli Homes, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Mo.App. 2001).

  3. McDonald v. Ward

    919 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 5 times
    In McDonald v. Ward, 919 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996), the plaintiff sought damages for the wrongful death of his son in a Missouri court.

    In determining whether the trial court correctly ruled on Defendant's motion, we consider only the contentions briefed by Defendant-Respondent. See BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.App. 1990). Plaintiff's petition alleged that his son was killed in an automobile collision on April 8, 1989, in Cherokee County, Kansas.

  4. National Ave. Bldg. Co. v. Stewart

    910 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that such an order is appealable

    We conclude from the factors set forth in the three preceding paragraphs that National has abandoned its former position that the arbitration provision in the contract is unenforceable. Cf. BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.App.S.D. 1990). The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court.

  5. Friend v. Yokohama Tire Corp.

    904 S.W.2d 575 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 6 times
    Entering a j.n.o.v. is the equivalent of directing a verdict at the close of the evidence

    Therefore, this is the only contention we discuss. See BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.App. 1990). One of the elements of a negligence per se action is that the violation of a statute was the proximate cause of the injury. Imperial Premium Fin., Inc. v. Northland Ins. Co., 861 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo.App. 1993).

  6. Silver Dollar City v. Kitsmiller Const

    874 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 11 times

    SDC, as respondent in this appeal, was not required to file a brief. BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.App.S.D. 1990). However, by doing so and briefing only the contentions it did, SDC abandoned — at least for the purpose of this appeal (which is all we need decide) — the contentions pled in the trial court but omitted from its brief.

  7. Van Stratten v. Friesen

    841 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 4 times
    In Van Stratten, the Missouri Court of Appeals determined that the five-year statute of limitations applied to contract provision which contained a promise to pay money dependant upon several contingencies.

    Therefore, this is the only issue related to the statute of limitations which this court considers. See Burden v. Burden, 811 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Mo.App. 1991); BCCLW/Casey, Inc. v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Mo.App. 1990). A thorough discussion of the cases relative to the applicability of the ten-year or five-year statute of limitations was conducted by the Western District of this court in Superintendent of Ins. v. Livestock Market, 709 S.W.2d 897, 900-903 (Mo.App. 1986).

  8. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMinn

    820 S.W.2d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    The court said, at 221: "A party to an action is a person whose name is designated on the record as plaintiff or defendant." See also State ex rel. Schweitzer v. Greene, 438 S.W.2d 229, 231[4] (Mo. banc 1969); BCCLW/Casey v. S.O. Gillioz Partners, 783 S.W.2d 174, 176 (Mo.App. 1990). Even if the entry of April 9, 1991, might be sufficient to dispose of the claim of plaintiff against defendant McMinn, it does not contain an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.