Richter v. Kirkwood

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Karl

    664 S.E.2d 667 (W. Va. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Such correct identification, according to Ms. Meadows, is necessary in order to determine juror bias. Ms. Meadows points out the concerns expressed by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board in its opinion governing captive law firms and notes that Nationwide was aware of the ramifications, including disclosure requirements, of utilizing a captive law firm when it chose to do business in this manner in West Virginia. Further, Ms. Meadows cites to cases from two jurisdictions, Richter v. Kirkwood, 111 S.W.3d 504 (Mo.Ct.App. 2003) and Stone v. Stakes, 755 N.E.2d 220 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001), as supporting her argument that the identification of counsel's office as "Nationwide Trial Division" during voir dire is proper. After thorough consideration of the arguments of the parties and our own independent research, we conclude that a writ of prohibition should not issue herein.

  2. Berra v. Danter

    299 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 36 times

    Id. There is no basis for plain error review. See Richter v. Kirkwood, 111 S.W.3d 504, 507-09 (Mo.App. 2003). Point one is denied.

  3. Andersen v. Boggs

    219 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Rushing v. City of Springfield, 180 S.W.3d 538, 539 (Mo.App. 2006). Additionally, as Richter v. Kirkwood, 111 S.W.3d 504 (Mo.App. 2003), explains: "In order to preserve a point for appellate review the point raised on appeal must be based upon the theory of the objection as made at the trial and as preserved in the motion for new trial."

  4. Patterson v. Patterson

    207 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    State v. Rogers, 973 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Mo.App. 1998). See also Richter v. Kirkwood, 111 S.W.3d 504, 507 n. 4 (Mo.App. 2003); Villines v. Mier, 58 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Mo.App. 2001). Ordinarily, an appellate court sits as a court of review.