Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc.

25 Citing cases

  1. Pisoni v. Steak 'N Shake Operations, Inc.

    468 S.W.3d 922 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

    The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.

  2. Pisoni v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc.

    468 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.

  3. Baldridge v. Director of Revenue

    82 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 26 times
    Arresting officer believed driver manipulating breath test; requested urine test which driver refused, no reliable test results obtained

    "`Spoliation' is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence.'" Schneider v. G. Guilliams,Inc. , 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Baugher v. GatesRubber Co. , 863 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App. 1993)). A party who intentionally spoliates evidence is subject to an adverse evidentiary inference.

  4. Degraffenreid v. R.L. Hannah Trucking Co.

    80 S.W.3d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 10 times

    "`Spoliation' is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence." Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc. , 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Baugher v. Gates Rubber Co. , 863 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App. 1993)). A party who intentionally spoliates evidence is subject to an adverse evidentiary inference.

  5. Saling v. Pelton

    4:22-cv-00392 SRC (E.D. Mo. Feb. 3, 2023)

    See Baldridge v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212, 223 (Mo.Ct.App. 2002); Garrett v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 259 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Mo. 1953); Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.Ct.App. 1998). โ€œThe adverse inference, however, does not prove the opposing party's case.

  6. Wilmes v. Consumers Oil Co. of Maryville

    473 S.W.3d 705 (W.D. Mo. 2015)

    The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.

  7. Wilmes v. Consumers Oil Co. of Maryville

    473 S.W.3d 705 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 23 times

    The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.

  8. Douglas v. Director of Revenue, State

    327 S.W.3d 555 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Second, the spoliation doctrine is limited to cases where a party, directly or indirectly, takes part in the destruction of evidence. Schneider v. G. Guittiams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 528 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). The purpose of the doctrine is to punish the spoliator.

  9. McKinley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    Case No. 1:05CV182 HEA (E.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2005)

    A breach of warranty action accrues when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered. MO. REV. STAT. ยง 400.2-725(2) (1994); see also Ouellette Machinery Systems, Inc. v. Clinton Lindberg Cadillac Co., 60 S.W.3d 618 (Mo.App. 2001); Schneider v. G. Gulliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App. 1998). Plaintiff alleges in her Petition that delivery and installation of the tires took place on May 16, 2001.

  10. State ex Rel. Zobel v. Burrell

    167 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. 2005)   Cited 11 times
    Holding "animal abuse" is not a vague term

    "`Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence.'" Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Baugher v. Gates Rubber Co., 863 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App. 1993)). A party who intentionally destroys or significantly alters evidence is subject to an adverse evidentiary inference under the spoliation of evidence doctrine.