Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Central Missouri Paving Co. v. Kraft

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 31, 1984No. WD 34587Published

1ConcurrenceClark, Judge

I concur in the majority opinion delivered in this case, but to the extent only of the result and, as to that, only with the qualifications here expressed. In my view, the majority opinion indulges a superficial choice to avoid confronting the dispositive issue in the case, the validity of the judgment on which the contested garnishment in aid of execution was obtained. In so doing, the majority opinion improvidently postpones decision as to a procedural and jurisdictional question of general importance to the trial courts and of immediate practical concern to appellant. Moreover, even in its…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Taylor v. TaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
  2. Flynn v. First National Safe Deposit CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  3. Workman v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  4. Barnes v. HiltonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1959
  5. Nicolai v. Faille-Talayna Pizza, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API