Legal Opinion

Gillespie v. Pulsifer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 26, 1983No. WD 34043PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KENNEDY, Judge.

The main question in the appeal before us is the sufficiency of certain signed writings to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement that a contract for the sale of real estate shall be “in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.” § 432.010, RSMo 1978.

Upon evidence which we shall hereafter describe, the trial court granted a summary judgment in the defendant seller’s favor upon the petition of the buyer for specific performance of the alleged contract.

We hold that the court ruled correctly and that as a matter of law the contract was unenforceable because not…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Edwards v. HeidelbaughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Ringer v. HoltzclawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
  3. Ray v. WoosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  4. American Mining Co. v. Himrod-Kimball Mines Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1951
  5. Ogooshevitz v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Shellabarger v. ShellabargerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Piazza v. CombsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Johnson v. CookMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. James W. Smith v. International Paper CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  5. Shafer v. Western Holding Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984

3 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