Pinkstaff v. Hill
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LOWENSTEIN, Chief Judge.
This action for wrongful garnishment presents a complicated set of facts, due in part to an extensive history dating back to 1980. To aid the reader the facts will first be presented in an unorthodox and summary manner. Three entities are initially involved, Barter Systems, Inc. of Oklahoma, Pinkstaff-Luetkemeyer, Inc. (plaintiff-appellant), and Barter Systems of Kansas City, Inc. While it is unclear, Pink-staff-Luetkemeyer was apparently doing business as Barter Systems, Inc. of Kansas City, and was also perhaps a franchisee of Barter Systems of Oklahoma.
In 1980, a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Burnett v. GriffithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989
- Fowler v. Park Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
- Glenn v. FlemingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990
- Sanders v. Daniel International Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
- Haswell v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Thomas E. Howard, Jr., Janice K. Howard and Howard Investments, LLC v. The Frost National Bank and TD Ameritrade, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2015
- Capital One Bank v. EDISON CREDIT UNIONMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- Stone v. J&M Securities, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2020