Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Harrisonville, Appellant-Respondent v. McCall Service Stations d/b/a Big Tank Oil, the Missouri Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 23, 2016No. SC94115Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZel M. Fischer, Judge

I respectfully dissent from Section VI of the per curiam opinion, which holds that § 319.1311 prohibits the Fund from having liability for punitive damages and that this case should be remanded to the circuit court for substitution of the Fund’s board as party defendant and a new trial.2 It is perplexing that the per curiam opinion is willing to require the Fund to adhere to some of this Court’s rules regarding preservation and presentment of issues for appellate review but not others.3 Although not explained by the per curiam opinion, this Court has jurisdiction of this case because it…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Howard v. City of Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 2011
  2. Sanders v. AhmedSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
  3. McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  4. Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, (Consolidated with)Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 2014
  5. Tietjens v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967

9 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