Legal Opinion

Boatright v. Shaw

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 26, 1990No. 58018PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRIMM, Judge.

In his first amended petition, plaintiff James Boatright seeks damages for alleged legal malpractice. The trial court sustained defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff appeals; we affirm.

In his sole point relied on, plaintiff contends his petition was improperly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

We first examine plaintiffs first amended petition. In the first three paragraphs, plaintiff alleges he hired defendants in 1974 to represent him in a claim against A. Brooks Company. Defendants filed a suit for plaintiff against…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & KeefeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. RoussinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Robinson v. DeWeeseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
  4. Fischer v. VonckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Pool v. BurlisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, PCSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
  2. Tompkins v. CervantesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Scher v. SindelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. McDowell v. WaldronMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Suelthaus & Kaplan, P.C. v. Byron Oil Industries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1992

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