Woodward v. Nyland

2 Citing cases

  1. Root v. England

    291 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)

    While Stemmler, Collier, and their progeny recite the above three-pronged test as an analytical guide for litigants involved in a will contest service of process dispute, whether or not these prongs are satisfied is determined on a case-by-case basis, as is clear from a reading of Stemmler, Collier, and other Missouri precedent addressing the good cause savings provision of section 473.083.6. See Cole v. Smith, 370 S.W.2d 307; Woodward v. Nyland, 915 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App. S.D. 1996); Larson v. Larson, 818 S.W.2d 740 (Mo.App. S.D. 1991); Powell v. Ware, 641 S.W.2d 824 (Mo.App. S.D. 1982). In the present case, appellants contend that the facts are most analogous to Collier v. Dunne. Respondents counter that Woodward v. Nyland and Cole v. Smith are more on point and should control.

  2. Sisk v. McIlroy

    934 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that an issue not pleaded in plaintiff's petition and not tried by the express or implied consent of the parties was not before the appellate court

    Judicial discretion is abused when the ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before it and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration; if reasonable people can differ about the propriety of the action taken, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. Woodward v. Nyland, 915 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Mo.App. S.D. 1996). In the instant case, Plaintiff does not argue or explain how the evidence in question would have required a different result in this case.