State ex rel. Koetting v. Kendrick

Supreme Court of Missouri

State ex rel. Koetting v. Kendrick

957 S.W.2d 768, 1997 Mo. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 800654

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedDecember 23, 1997

DocketNo. 80119

StatusPublished

This text of 957 S.W.2d 768 (State ex rel. Koetting v. Kendrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Koetting v. Kendrick, 957 S.W.2d 768, 1997 Mo. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 800654 (Mo. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 1997, the respondent trial judge entered an order granting attorney Michael Pitzer’s motion to set aside a stipulation for dismissal, granting leave to file an amended stipulation for dismissal, and reinstating plaintiffs original petition. Pitzer’s motion to set aside the stipulation for dismissal was verified and contained a paragraph stating:

15. That Michael J. Pitzer is filing this matter in his name as he has now been advised by the attorney for Paul Endsley that he has no authority to act for Plaintiff, Paul Endsley, to set aside the dismissal, and, in fact, is being sued for malpractice by Plaintiff, Paul Endsley, on the basis that Paul Endsley cannot proceed further with the claim of Paul Endsley against Kathleen Koetting herein.

Because Pitzer represents that he has no authority to act on behalf of plaintiff, Paul Endsley, regardless of the merits of the attempted action, we make our preliminary order in prohibition, entered August 19,1997, absolute.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 1997, the respondent trial judge entered an order granting attorney Michael Pitzer’s motion to set aside a stipulation for dismissal, granting leave to file an amended stipulation for dismissal, and reinstating plaintiffs original petition. Pitzer’s motion to set aside the stipulation for dismissal was verified and contained a paragraph stating:

15. That Michael J. Pitzer is filing this matter in his name as he has now been advised by the attorney for Paul Endsley that he has no authority to act for Plaintiff, Paul Endsley, to set aside the dismissal, and, in fact, is being sued for malpractice by Plaintiff, Paul Endsley, on the basis that Paul Endsley cannot proceed further with the claim of Paul Endsley against Kathleen Koetting herein.

Because Pitzer represents that he has no authority to act on behalf of plaintiff, Paul Endsley, regardless of the merits of the attempted action, we make our preliminary order in prohibition, entered August 19,1997, absolute.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

957 S.W.2d 768, 1997 Mo. LEXIS 112, 1997 WL 800654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-koetting-v-kendrick-mo-1997.