Newfeld v. Chemical Dynamics, Inc.
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
CRANDALL, Judge.
Defendant, Chemical Dynamics, Inc. (Chemical), d/b/a Schultz Company, appeals from the judgment, which awarded back rent plus prejudgment interest in the total amount of $571,262.68 to plaintiffs, Lawrence Newfeld, Frieda Newfeld, and Harry Schultz. We affirm as modified.
The instant case was court-tried upon a stipulation of facts with joint exhibits. The ultimate issue on appeal is whether the trial court drew the proper legal conclusions from the stipulated facts. Schroeder v. Horack, 592 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Mo. banc 1979).
A summary of the stipulated facts indicates that…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schroeder Ex Rel. Schroeder v. HorackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1979
- Lucas Hunt Village Co. v. KleinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Solter v. P.M. Place Stores Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- Stern Fixture Co. v. LaytonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- St. Louis Terminals Corp. v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- ARE Sikeston Ltd. v. Weslock National, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
- Siragusa v. Chang Su ParkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Incentive Realty, Inc. v. HawatmehMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
- ABC Beverage Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008
- State Ex Rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Westgrove Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.