Wimmer v. Marianist Province of the United States

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wimmer v. Marianist Province of the United States

519 S.W.3d 443, 2016 WL 8290212

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 2016·No. No. ED 104526·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In 2015, Christopher Wimmer (“Appellant”) filed a two-count petition against Marianist Province of the United States (“Marianist”), Father Martin Solma, and Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc. (“Chaminade”) (collectively “Respondents”) arising out of the sexual abuse committed against him. by two deceased Marianist Brothers when he was a student at Chaminade’s middle school and high school in the 1970s. Count one alleged the intentional failure to supervise clergy and count two alleged the intentional infliction of emotional distress against all Respondents. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s petition as barred by the statute of limitations because it found that his claims accrued when he turned twenty-one and thus ran five years after that date. Finding that no error of law appears, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In 2015, Christopher Wimmer (“Appellant”) filed a two-count petition against Marianist Province of the United States (“Marianist”), Father Martin Solma, and Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc. (“Chaminade”) (collectively “Respondents”) arising out of the sexual abuse committed against him. by two deceased Marianist Brothers when he was a student at Chaminade’s middle school and high school in the 1970s. Count one alleged the intentional failure to supervise clergy and count two alleged the intentional infliction of emotional distress against all Respondents. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s petition as barred by the statute of limitations because it found that his claims accrued when he turned twenty-one and thus ran five years after that date. Finding that no error of law appears, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Wimmer v. Marianist Province of the United States, 519 S.W.3d 443, 2016 WL 8290212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

519 S.W.3d 443 (Wimmer v. Marianist Province of the United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.