Legal Opinion
Matteuzzi v. Columbus Partnership, L.P.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided November 23, 1993No. 75707PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LIMBAUGH, Judge.
In this personal injury case, we are asked to review a cause of action based on the inherently dangerous activity doctrine. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure-to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff Matteuzzi appealed to the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, which, after opinion, transferred the case to this Court under Rule 83.02. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The facts disclosed in the petition and the record of the trial court are summarized as follows: Defendant Columbus Partnership (“Partnership”) owns a 95 year-old…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1991
- Mallory v. Louisiana Pure Ice & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Smith v. Inter-County Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1977
- Ballinger v. Gascosage Electric CooperativeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
- Halmick v. SBC Corporate Services, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1999
- J.M. v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1996
- Dillard v. StreckerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994
- Bydalek v. BrinesMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.