Johnston v. Conger

5 Citing cases

  1. Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.

    936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1997)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that several witnesses had consumed wine before being involved in an automobile collision

    Generally, evidence of alcohol consumption "is relevant and material to the witness's ability to see, hear, perceive and observe." Johnston v. Conger, 854 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Mo. App. 1993), citing State v. Caston, 509 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Mo. 1974). This evidence is admissible by cross-examination or by independent testimony.

  2. Guess v. Escobar

    26 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 34 times

    Next, we address Guess' claim that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Guess' alcohol consumption. In Johnston v. Conger, 854 S.W.2d 480, (Mo.App.W.D. 1993), this court stated that "evidence of the intoxication of a witness is relevant and material to the witness's ability to see, hear, perceive, and observe." Id. at 483.

  3. Dean v. St. Anthony's Medical Center

    978 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Without regard to Rodriguez, evidence of alcohol consumption is admissible because it is relevant and material to a witness's ability to see, hear, perceive, and observe. Johnston v. Conger, 854 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Mo.App. W.D. 1993). Although not offered to prove negligence, courts in Missouri have recognized that evidence of intoxication is nevertheless relevant because it relates to the credibility of a witness and his ability to accurately describe the events that took place. Id.

  4. Corn v. Levy

    97 App. Div. 48 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)   Cited 5 times

    " The case most frequently cited by those judges who have held hypothetical defenses to be bad on demurrer, is Conger v. Johnston (2 Den. 96), which came before the old Supreme Court in 1846. The declaration was in assumpsit, and the third plea was that the several supposed causes of action mentioned in the declaration, "`if any such there were, or still are,' did not accrue within six years," etc. A demurrer on the ground that the plea did not sufficiently confess the action or give color to the plaintiff, was sustained in an opinion by BRONSON, Ch. J., who said: "Every plea in confession and avoidance must give color, by admitting an apparent or prima facie right in the plaintiff.

  5. Saleeby v. Central Railroad of N.J

    40 Misc. 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1903)   Cited 2 times

    The pleadings of these defenses are bad, and the demurrer should be sustained because thereof. Conger v. Johnston, 2 Den. 96; Goodman v. Robb, 41 Hun, 605. I think the affirmative defenses are further faultily pleaded in that they fail to contain any sufficient denial of the allegations of the complaint, which, under such conditions, must for the purpose of this demurrer be taken as true.