Fine v. Waldman Mercantile Company
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
CLEMENS, Commissioner.
On this appeal two principles of appellate procedure come into conflict: the presumption that the trial court acted correctly, and the presumption that the transcript is correct and complete.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition, charging that a prior action concerning the same subject matter was pending and that the plaintiffs could get relief only by counterclaims in the prior action. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the petition. Plaintiffs appeal from that order.
By their petition, filed November 18, 1965, plaintiffs Marvin Fine…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Glick Ex Rel. McGinty v. Ballentine Produce Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1965
- Rippe v. SutterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- Hamilton v. LinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
- Hall v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
- State v. MorelandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Kummer v. CruzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- STATE EX INF. RIEDERER v. CollinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
- State Ex Rel. Dixon v. DarnoldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
- Emanuel v. RichardsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
- Ingalls v. NeufeldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.