Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. Board of Regents of Southwest Missouri State University v. Bonacker

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 23, 1989No. 15912Published

1DissentHolstein, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that a garnishment is the “kind of independent proceeding which does in fact adjudicate rights of individuals, irrespective of and not conditioned upon what was provided in the original decree.” (Emphasis added). I believe the above holding is inconsistent with prior decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as other courts of this state.

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a garnishment proceeding is “purely ancillary” and “incidental” to the main suit. Dunn v. Bemor Petroleum, 737 S.W.2d 187, 189 (Mo. banc 1987); State ex rel. Eagle Bank &…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hayes v. HayesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
  2. Sutton v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  3. State Ex Rel. Auchincloss, Parker & Redpath, Inc. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
  4. State Ex Rel. Bagnell Investment Co. v. LutenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
  5. State Ex Rel. Eagle Bank & Trust Co. Ex Rel. Roderman v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983

8 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