Legal Opinion
Mullen v. General Motors Corp.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided August 10, 1982No. WD 32766PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WASSERSTROM, Judge.
Plaintiff sued for breach of warranty on a new Cadillac. Defendants moved to dismiss because of a prior action pending on the same cause of action. The trial court sustained that motion, and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
On June 12, 1979, plaintiff purchased a new automobile from defendant Major Cadillac Corporation. In December of that year the brakes failed, and Major Cadillac replaced the brakes on January 28, 1980. In his first amended petition, plaintiff alleges that on that date “defendants also were advised the automobile motor and transmission were not functioning…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cady v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
- Grue v. HensleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Wheeler Savings Bank v. TraceySupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. LowranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
- Szombathy v. MerzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Oberkramer v. City of EllisvilleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
- Korte Construction Co. v. Deaconess Manor Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Matt Medina and Esther Medina v. Wood River Pipeline Company and Gregory & Cook, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987
- Mullen v. RennerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- State ex rel. Agri-Trans Corp. v. NolanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.