Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Griffin, Dysart, Taylor, Penner & Lay, P.C.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided September 25, 1984No. WD 35251PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LOWENSTEIN, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Anderson, appeals from a trial court order dismissing his petition on the ground that his action is barred by the statute of limitations. The scope of review on a motion to dismiss requires that the court examines the pleadings allowing them their broadest intendment, treating all facts alleged as true and construing the allegations favorably to the plaintiff. Best v. Schoemehl, 652 S.W.2d 740 (Mo.App.1983).

Anderson retained respondent Dysart in 1974 as his attorney to pursue a claim against Vincent Piseiotta for personal injuries resulting from a bar…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Jepson v. StubbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1977
  2. Krug v. Sterling Drug, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1967
  3. Chemical Workers Basic Union Local No. 1744 v. Arnold Savings BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
  4. Dixon v. ShaftonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
  5. Best v. SchoemehlMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Klemme v. BestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  2. Business Men's Assurance Co. of America v. GrahamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Sheehan v. SheehanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
  4. Martin v. Crowley, Wade & Milstead, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1985
  5. M & D ENTERPRISES, INC. v. WolffMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API