Boillot v. Conyer

10 Citing cases

  1. Pen-Yan Investment v. Boyd Kansas City

    952 S.W.2d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that administrative regulations are invalid to the extent that they conflict with the law under which they are promulgated

    Notwithstanding the trial court's certification, the denial of a motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction is not a final judgment which can be appealed. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo. App. 1993). An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is not an ultimate disposition of an individual claim rendering it a final judgment.

  2. Boillot v. Conyer

    887 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    The defendant, Freda Pauline Conyer (Daughter), appeals from the order of the trial court directing her to convey an unlimited life estate in certain real property to Emma E. King (Mother). This action has already twice been the subject of appeal. See Boillot v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95 (Mo.App. 1992) ( Boillot I); and, Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.App. 1993) ( Boillot II). We reverse and remand.

  3. Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.

    996 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. 1999)   Cited 126 times
    Holding that a NHTSA report concerning vehicle rollovers was properly admitted pursuant to § 490.220

    However, the doctrine is limited to cases in which the issue in controversy has been raised and decided in a prior appeal. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo. App. 1993); Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 761 S.W.2d 735, 741 (Mo. App. 1988). The mere denial of a petition for writ of prohibition where the appellate court issues no opinion is not a conclusive decision on the merits of the issue presented.

  4. State ex Rel. Est. of Perry ex Rel. Perry

    168 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that the right to an appeal pursuant to section 472.160.1 is "liberally construed, as the law favors the right to appeal"

    On the other hand, a determination by the trial court that it has jurisdiction does not dispose of the issues and parties before the court and is not a final, appealable order, and such a determination is properly reviewable by extraordinary writ. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). In short, the trial court's order dismissing Perry's petition and application was a final, appealable order, properly before this Court on appeal.

  5. McKinney v. State Farm Mutual Ins

    123 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that an uninsured motorist claim is a separate and distinct cause of action from the tort claim asserted against the uninsured motorist

    Dep't of Natural Res.Parks Recreation v. Lossos , 960 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Mo.App.S.D. 1998) (citing Laclede Gas Co. v. Labor Indus. Relations Comm'n , 657 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Mo.App.E.D. 1983)). Appellate review of questions of law is de novo. Baris v. Layton , 43 S.W.3d 390, 397 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001) (citing Boillot v. Conyer , 861 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App. 1993)). A reviewing court gives no deference to the trial court's judgment "where resolution of the controversy involves a question of law."

  6. Baris v. Layton

    43 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 18 times

    In his second point on cross-appeal, Attorney asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for increase of judgment to include prejudgment interest in contravention of section 408.020 RSMo 1994. Questions of law are matters reserved for de novo review by the appellate court, and we therefore give no deference to the trial court's judgment in such matters. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App. 1993). Under section 408.020, prejudgment interest is only awardable on liquidated claims.

  7. Fierstein v. DePaul Health Center

    24 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming award of actual and punitive damages for disclosure of confidential records without authorization

    A decision by this court is the law of the case on all points raised and decided and the decision continues to govern throughout all subsequent proceedings both in the trial and appellate courts. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). No issue decided in the first appeal will be readdressed on the second.

  8. H B Masonry Co., Inc. v. Davis

    32 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 13 times

    Questions of law are matters reserved for de novo review by the appellate court, and we therefore give no deference to the trial court's judgment in such matters.Boillet v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). In cases involving breach of implied warranty, the theory on which HB sued Kirchner in Count III of its petition, the court is to apply the lower of the cost-to-repair or diminution-in-value in assessing the amount of damages.

  9. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Children's

    901 S.W.2d 270 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 14 times

    The threshold issue is whether the 1992 order denying SLU's first motion for partial satisfaction of judgment was appealable. SLU relies on Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993), for the proposition that "[a] determination by a court as to whether or not it has jurisdiction of a matter or issue is not an appealable order, and instead is properly reviewable by an extraordinary writ." However, a careful reading of Boillot reveals that it reaches a different conclusion: "A determination that a court has jurisdiction is not an appealable order and instead is properly reviewable by an extraordinary writ.

  10. Lehnig v. Bornhop

    896 S.W.2d 714 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 6 times
    Reaffirming that five year statute of limitations applied

    "No issue decided in the first appeal will be readdressed on the second." Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). Further, the "law of the case" rule also applies to matters which arose prior to the first appeal and which might have been presented at that time but were not.