Legal Opinion

Hoffman v. Van Pak Corp.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 7, 2000No. ED 75976PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, who formerly had been employed by defendant as a salesman, appeals from that part of the trial court’s judgment denying relief under Sections 407.911-.915 RSMo (1994), which provides for damages, in addition to actual damages, to certain “sales representatives” who were not timely paid “commissions” pursuant to a contract with a “principal” to solicit “wholesale” orders. We affirm on the grounds that sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that defendant was not a “principal” as defined in the statute.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

We view…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  2. Roland Electrical Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Spradlin v. City of FultonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1998
  4. Asbury v. LombardiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  5. Hyde Park Housing Partnership v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lapponese v. Carts of Colorado, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Lee v. Thermal Engineering Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
  3. TRIM FIT, LLC v. DickeyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
  4. Motton v. Outsource InternationalMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Tri-County Levee District v. Missouri Highway & Transportation CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 2001

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