Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Burnett v. Griffith

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 16, 1989No. 69147Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRendlen, Judge

For the reasons herein discussed, I respectfully dissent from certain portions of the majority opinion. This action involves three consecutive interrelated intentional torts. They are in order of occurrence: Assault and Battery, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution. Three closely connected defendants, named in each count, are: defendant # 1, the security guard (Griffith) employed by defendants # 2 and # 3 to patrol their shopping center property where the assault occurred; defendant # 2, East Hills Merchants Association (East Hills), an association of merchants in the shopping center;…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sanders v. Daniel International Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
  2. McGinnis v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  3. Douglass v. SafireSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
  4. Stark v. American Bakeries Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1983
  5. Palermo v. CottomMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975

5 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