Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Clark v. Kintz

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 31, 1992No. 61289PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SATZ, Presiding Judge.

This is an action in prohibition. The underlying action is a continuation of a dissolution proceeding remanded to the trial court by this Court in Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95 (Mo.App.1990). In the action now pending below, the respondent judge granted the wife’s motion to compel the husband to respond to the wife’s extensive requests for discovery.1 The husband, relator here, seeks our writ to prohibit respondent from enforcing his order, on the ground the order exceeds this Court’s mandate in Clark, supra. We issued our preliminary writ and now make it permanent.

The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Clark v. ClarkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Rickard v. RickardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Rickard v. RickardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp. v. ReevesTennessee Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Robert M. Lively v. Consolidation Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1969
  3. Bunch v. BunchCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API