Lehnig v. Bornhop
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
CRAHAN, Judge.
Rudy and Kay Lehnig (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining Norbert Bornhop and Frank Conard’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss their claims with prejudice on the ground that they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse and remand.
In reviewing the dismissal of a petition, we allow the pleading its broadest intendment, treat all facts alleged as true, and construe the allegations favorably to the plaintiffs. Martin v. Crowley, Wade & Milstead, Inc., 702 S.W.2d 57, 57 (Mo. banc 1985).
Plaintiffs’ petition alleges that Defendant Conard,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schwartz v. LawsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
- Martin v. Crowley, Wade & Milstead, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1985
- McLeod v. Marion Laboratories, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1980
- Mental Health Associates, Inc. v. CarlsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
- Miller v. LarsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
3Cited by25 opinions
- Klemme v. BestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
- Koester v. American Republic Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Moore v. Missouri-Nebraska Express, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re LauerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
- Plengemeier v. Thermadyne Industries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2013
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.