White v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. Smith

898 S.W.2d 138, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 985, 1995 WL 309668

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 1995

DocketNo. WD 49489

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 898 S.W.2d 138 (White v. Smith) 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

White v. Smith, 898 S.W.2d 138, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 985, 1995 WL 309668 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lark Smith and John Robertson appeal from a judgment entered against them and in favor of Kenneth White and Alma Jo White. Defendants contend on appeal: 1) that the court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 73.01; 2) that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony as to lost income which went beyond plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers; 3) that the court erred in denying leave to amend their answer to deny an agency relationship between the defendants; and 4) that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence of a causal relationship between the vehicular collision in question and the injuries of plaintiff Kenneth White.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lark Smith and John Robertson appeal from a judgment entered against them and in favor of Kenneth White and Alma Jo White. Defendants contend on appeal: 1) that the court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 73.01; 2) that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony as to lost income which went beyond plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers; 3) that the court erred in denying leave to amend their answer to deny an agency relationship between the defendants; and 4) that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence of a causal relationship between the vehicular collision in question and the injuries of plaintiff Kenneth White.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 S.W.2d 138, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 985, 1995 WL 309668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-smith-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack