Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Vee Jay Cement

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 2002No. ED 79642PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Judge.

Carl and Carol Johnson (hereinafter, “Appellants”) appeal the judgment of the trial court dismissing their petition for damages against Vee Jay Cement (hereinafter, “Vee Jay”). Appellants claim the trial court erred in two respects. First, Appellants claim the trial court erred in dismissing their petition because they claim Vee Jay failed to raise the running of the statute of limitations properly as an affirmative defense in its answer. Second, Appellants allege that even if Vee Jay did properly raise the statute of limitations defense, their claim is not barred…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nazeri v. Missouri Valley CollegeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  2. Sheehan v. SheehanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
  3. City of Chesterfield v. Deshetler Homes, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Manzer v. SanchezMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Jordan v. City of Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. RGB2, INC. v. Chestnut Plaza, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. Plengemeier v. Thermadyne Industries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Summer Chase Second Addition Subdivision Homeowners Ass'n v. Taylor-Morley, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Patel v. PateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  5. Grady v. Amrep, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2004

4 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