Legal Opinion

Lomax v. Sewell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 22, 2001No. WD 58636PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRECKENRIDGE, Judge.

Charles E. Lomax appeals the trial court’s judgment granting Minnie Sewell’s and Jerry P. Strossner’s motions to dismiss his will contest because it failed to state a cause of action and was “barred by the previous action herein.” Before Mr. Lomax filed his petition, separate heirs at law attempted to challenge the validity of the will in question. In prior opinions by the Supreme Court and this court, each of those heirs’ actions was ultimately determined to be barred by the statute of limitations because either the exception to the statute of limitations had not been…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  2. Bosworth v. SewellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1996
  3. Jordan v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Campbell v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1940
  5. Robin Farms, Inc. v. BeelerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Vogt v. EmmonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. Lauber-Clayton, LLC v. Novus Properties Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Dodson v. City of WentzvilleMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Motor Control Specialities, Inc. v. Labor & Industrial Relations CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. Roger Niere Vivian McCallum v. St. Louis County, MissouriCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002

11 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