Battaglia v. Cohen

Missouri Court of Appeals

Battaglia v. Cohen

356 S.W.3d 275, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1447, 2011 WL 5137765

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

DocketWD 72301, WD 72316

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.W.3d 275 (Battaglia v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Battaglia v. Cohen, 356 S.W.3d 275, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1447, 2011 WL 5137765 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Marion Battaglia (“Battaglia”) brought suit against multiple defendants based on multiple claims, asserting that his legal rights were violated by the sale of two car dealerships (and the related assets and real estate). Upon the conclusion of trial, the jury rejected Battaglia’s breach of contract and conspiracy claims, and Battaglia now appeals regarding various legal issues pertinent to those verdicts.

The jury did render a verdict in Battag-lia’s favor as it pertained to his breach of shareholder agreement claim (awarding damages in the amount of $145,600) and breach of fiduciary duty claim (awarding damages in the amount of $71,400). The jury also found that Barton J. Cohen (“Cohen”) and A. Baron Cass III (“Cass”) should be liable for punitive damages for this breach of fiduciary duty claim. Thereafter, the trial court awarded punitive damages under Kansas law in the amount of $250,000 against Cohen and $100,000 against Cass and their respective Trusts. These defendants cross-appeal from the verdict rendered against them.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Marion Battaglia (“Battaglia”) brought suit against multiple defendants based on multiple claims, asserting that his legal rights were violated by the sale of two car dealerships (and the related assets and real estate). Upon the conclusion of trial, the jury rejected Battaglia’s breach of contract and conspiracy claims, and Battaglia now appeals regarding various legal issues pertinent to those verdicts.

The jury did render a verdict in Battag-lia’s favor as it pertained to his breach of shareholder agreement claim (awarding damages in the amount of $145,600) and breach of fiduciary duty claim (awarding damages in the amount of $71,400). The jury also found that Barton J. Cohen (“Cohen”) and A. Baron Cass III (“Cass”) should be liable for punitive damages for this breach of fiduciary duty claim. Thereafter, the trial court awarded punitive damages under Kansas law in the amount of $250,000 against Cohen and $100,000 against Cass and their respective Trusts. These defendants cross-appeal from the verdict rendered against them.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 275, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1447, 2011 WL 5137765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battaglia-v-cohen-moctapp-2011.