Legal Opinion
Davis v. Wieland
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided June 12, 2018No. WD 81032PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKaren King Mitchell, Presiding Judge
This case arises from the second entry of a judgment for sanctions against attorneys Patrick Michael Davis, Mandee Rowen Pingel, and their firm, Davis | Pingel & Associates (collectively "Attorneys") in a child custody modification case where Attorneys represented the mother. Attorneys raise four points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in entering a judgment for sanctions of $75,000 because Attorneys did not act in bad faith and were not afforded the procedural protections provided by Rule 55.03; (2) the trial court erred in granting Father's motion for sanctions and entering a judgment…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- State Ex Rel. Twiehaus v. AdolfSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
- Anglim v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
- In Re Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. United States of America v. Kenneth W. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Brown v. HamidSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Rita Lynne Terpstra v. State of Missouri, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 2019
- AMBER HALE, f/k/a AMBER KOESTER v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANYMissouri Court of Appeals · 2021
- Alexandra C. Prevost v. Brett M. SilmonMissouri Court of Appeals · 2022
- Beth Weisz v. Great American Title Q 1-103-1, LLC, a/k/a Great American Title Q 1-103-2, LLC, a/k/a Great American Title of the Ozarks, LLCMissouri Court of Appeals · 2020
- David L. Johnson v. Mario UseraMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.