Armoneit v. Ezell
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMary R. Russell, P.J.
Kevin Armoneit (“Employee”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of George Ezell (“Employer”). On appeal, Employee asserts four reasons why summary judgment should not have been granted. First, Employee claims a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Employer struck him intentionally or recklessly. Second, he contends Employer failed to meet his prima facie burden for summary judgment because Employer’s motion relied on evidence not competent to establish his intention when he struck Employee. Third, he asserts that because Employer failed to plead the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- State v. SelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
- K.G. v. R.T.R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1996
- Nichols v. BresnahanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Martin v. YeohamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. BrooksKentucky Supreme Court · 2009
- Dilley v. ValentineMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLCMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
- Caruso v. Harmon (In Re Harmon)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · 2009
- Carolyn Holmes, Personal Representative for the Estate of Robert v. Holmes v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2020
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.