Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp.

949 S.W.2d 151 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp.

18 Citing cases

  1. Carter v. St. John's Regional Med. Center

    88 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that "[e]xcept for [Rusk Farms, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 689 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)], Missouri courts have consistently held that pecuniary loss is an essential element of an action sounding in interference with contracts or business expectancy," and that " presumptive award of nominal damages is not an option in deciding if [the plaintiff] made a submissible case" for tortious interference

    "To preserve evidentiary questions for appeal, there must be an objection giving the grounds at the time the evidence is sought to be introduced and the same objection must . . . then [be] carried forward in the appeal brief." Rogers v. B. G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153[1] (Mo.App. 1997). Grounds for excluding evidence that are not stated in an objection are waived, and a party may not advance on appeal an objection to evidence different from the one made to the trial court.

  2. Enos v. Ryder Automotive Operations, Inc.

    73 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 9 times

    "To preserve evidentiary questions for appeal, there must be an objection giving the grounds at the time the evidence is sought to be introduced, and the same objection must be set out in the motion for new trial then carried forward in the appeal brief." Brewer v. Raynor Mfg. Co., 23 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo.App.S.D. 2000) ( citing, Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo.App.S.D. 1997)). Appellant noted in his motion for new trial that there would be additional grounds raised in his motion in support for new trial.

  3. Joy v. Morrison

    254 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. 2008)   Cited 94 times
    Holding deliberation may be inferred from the defendant's statements implying a plan to inflict harm

    Also, Shirkey did not respond when asked if any members of the panel could not follow the standard of care that had been read to them aloud during voir dire; if any veniremen could not apply the burden of proof as explained to them by counsel and the trial court; or if any of the venire panel members could not find liability, apportion fault or award damages based on the instructions and evidence presented. While Shirkey may have expressed a general feeling against excessive lawsuits, it was not clear that that translated into a bias against Joy. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 156 (Mo.App. 1997). Mere equivocation is not enough to disqualify a juror.

  4. Potter v. Hy-Vee, Inc.

    560 S.W.3d 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    To preserve an evidentiary objection for appeal, the objection must be made at the time the evidence is being introduced, and the same objection must be carried forward on appeal. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp. , 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo. App. 1997). The scope of the objection cannot be broadened or altered on appeal.

  5. Mitchell v. Wilson

    496 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    In order for Appellant to preserve for appellate review his objections to Respondent's impeachment with his convictions:there must have been an objection made at the time the evidence was sought to be introduced and then carried forward on appeal. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo.App.S.D.1997). “Moreover, objections to evidence must be specific, must point out the grounds thereof, and are to be determined upon the grounds stated therein.”

  6. Midland Property Partners, LLC v. Watkins

    416 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that contract must provide expressly for attorney's fees to justify departure from the American Rule, and, with agreement allowing the recovery of "costs" only, lower court erred in awarding attorney's fees

    Appellant, however, failed to raise this objection at trial; thus, it was not preserved for our review. See Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo.App.S.D.1997) (explaining that “[t]o preserve evidentiary questions for appeal, there must be an objection giving the grounds at the time the evidence is sought to be introduced” and that an appellant cannot “alter or broaden the scope of the objection on appeal”). Appellant further contends that the circuit court erroneously permitted Respondents to amend their pleadings after the close of evidence pursuant to Rule 55.33(b).

  7. Ledure v. BNSF Railway Co.

    351 S.W.3d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 12 times
    In Ledure, we were guided by Daus, where a deliberating juror allegedly said that the defendant doctor would lose his license and malpractice coverage if he lost the case.

    As a result, the trial court's denial of Appellant's challenge for cause to Mr. Oesterreich is not reversible error even if the denial in fact was erroneous. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Giles v. Riverside Transport, Inc., 266 S.W.3d 290, 298 (Mo.App. W.D.2008). Bell

  8. State v. Middlemist

    319 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 10 times

    While Defendant asserts that the trial court's admission of evidence relating to Defendant's electronic bank transfers also violated the "prior bad acts" rule, the State's assertion that Defendant did not preserve the issue for our review is well-taken. Preservation of evidentiary questions for appeal requires an objection at the time the evidence is sought to be introduced along with the same objection being carried forward on appeal. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo. App. 1997). An objection to the admissibility of evidence must be specific.

  9. Hight v. Hight

    314 S.W.3d 874 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Finding an abuse of discretion in awarding wife 93 percent of marital assets and only 27 percent of marital debt despite husband's abuse during the marriage

    An objection regarding admissibility of evidence must specifically point out the grounds for that objection. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997). Husband "may not advance on appeal an objection to evidence different from the one presented to the trial court."

  10. Pope v. Child Abuse and Neglect

    309 S.W.3d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    A party may not advance on appeal an objection to evidence different from the one presented to the trial court. Rogers v. B.G. Transit Corp., 949 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997). Nor may the party alter or broaden the scope of the objection on appeal.