Legal Opinion

Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 7, 1992No. 59165PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SATZ, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s petition. Plaintiff, Mrs. June Marie Corrigan, is the widow of Mr. Thomas J. Corrigan, Sr., who, until his death, was a client of the defendant law firm, Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus (Armstrong). In her petition, Mrs. Corrigan seeks the delivery by Armstrong of “all documents ... relating to” Armstrong’s representation of Mr. Corrigan. The trial court granted Armstrong’s motion to dismiss Mrs. Corrigan’s petition for failure to state a claim. Mrs. Corrigan appeals. We affirm.

Mrs. Corrigan contends…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. Dubilier Condenser CorpSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Hapgood v. HewittSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. Kallen v. DelugCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Ablah v. EymanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1961
  5. Maryland Plaza Redevelopment Corp. v. GreenbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Missouri Soybean Ass'n v. Missouri Clean Water CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  2. Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. Teague v. Missouri Gaming CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Felling v. GilesMissouri Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers v. HenrySupreme Court of Georgia · 2003

20 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