Morris Ex Rel. Morris v. Klein
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
CLEMENS, Commissioner.
The issue here is the propriety of having given defendant’s modified MAI converse instruction. The jury found for the defendant, but the trial court granted the plaintiff a new trial on the ground that it had erred in giving the defendant’s converse instruction. Now, the defendant has appealed, contending that his converse instruction was properly given. Our decision depends on the answers to two questions. First, was it error for the defendant to modify an MAI converse instruction in order to conform to the plaintiff’s modified MAI verdict-directing instruction?…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Millhouser v. Kansas City Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Liebow v. Jones Store CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Dell'Aria v. BonfaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- McCarty v. Milgram Food StoresSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Chance v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. LandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
- Bower v. Hog Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1970
- Hamilton Hauling, Inc. v. GAF Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1986
- Matter of Estate of MitchellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
- Arnel ex rel. Luadzers v. RoettgenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.