Legal Opinion

Hickerson v. Con Frazier Buick Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 7, 1953No. 21891PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAVE, Presiding Judge.

This is an action for damages resulting from an automobile transaction under circumstances hereinafter detailed. The court sustained defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and entered judgment accordingly, from which plaintiff appeals.

Defendant (respondent) has filed motion to dismiss the appeal because the transcript was not filed within the time allowed by law and without the appellant’s having secured an extension of time by this court to file the same. Our records show that on April 7, 1953, on motion of appellant we extended…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Pflanz v. PflanzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1944
  2. Howard v. StrodeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  3. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. H. M. Brown Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1932
  4. Farm and Home Savings and Loan Assn. v. StubbsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936
  5. Lee v. KaiserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Bartleman v. HumphreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
  2. Jones v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  3. Pashalian v. Big-4 Chevrolet CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961
  4. GFC CORPORATION v. NesserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  5. Gill v. Mercantile Trust CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961

11 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