Kirsch v. SAKABU

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kirsch v. SAKABU

233 S.W.3d 234, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1341, 2007 WL 2702346

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

DocketED 89040

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 S.W.3d 234 (Kirsch v. SAKABU) 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

Kirsch v. SAKABU, 233 S.W.3d 234, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1341, 2007 WL 2702346 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Kirsch and Michelle Kirsch (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their claims against Regency Construction Company, Lanny Corley (“Corley”), and Frank Gru-challa. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Corley because the claims were not barred by the exclusivity of Missouri’s Workers’ Compensation Law and were within the court’s jurisdiction because Corley’s actions constituted “something more” than failing to satisfy Regency’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Cor-ley. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Kirsch and Michelle Kirsch (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their claims against Regency Construction Company, Lanny Corley (“Corley”), and Frank Gru-challa. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Corley because the claims were not barred by the exclusivity of Missouri’s Workers’ Compensation Law and were within the court’s jurisdiction because Corley’s actions constituted “something more” than failing to satisfy Regency’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Cor-ley. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 234, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1341, 2007 WL 2702346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirsch-v-sakabu-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack