Fairbanks v. Chambers
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
NUGENT, Judge.
The defendants appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor in this action to recover damages for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for consumption of hog feed supplement. Defendants primarily argue that the evidence was not sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil so as to hold them individually liable for plaintiffs’ loss. We agree with the defendants that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient for that purpose. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for new trial.
Defendants’ appeal is not concerned with damages or…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. P. Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Zimmerman v. Associates Discount CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
- Lange v. BakerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
- Mansfield v. SmithieMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
- Lynn v. Lloyd A. Lynn, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Aronson v. PriceIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
- Terre Du Lac Ass'n v. Terre Du Lac, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1987
- Melissa Suzanne Brown, a Minor by Her Next Friend, Martin Brown, Martin Brown and Susan Brown v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. And Syntex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
- Steve Hibbs v. Brian BergerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
- Ball v. American Greetings Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1988
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.