Legal Opinion

Stallman v. Hill

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 3, 1974No. KCD 26580PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WASSERSTROM, Judge.

Upon appeal by plaintiff (herein respondent) from an adverse judgment in Magistrate Court, trial de novo in Circuit Court resulted in a judgment of $542.69 for plaintiff. The cause of action was prosecuted for damages resulting from the loss of use of plaintiff’s automobile during the period of repairs following a collision with defendant’s automobile. The judgment represented the rental expenses incurred by plaintiff for a substitute automobile during the time that his was being repaired.

As an appeal from a court tried case, appellate review is de novo, upon both the law…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Schmitt v. PierceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
  3. Minor v. LillardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  4. Browder v. MillaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  5. Drydale v. KiserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Fallert Tool & Engineering Co. v. McClainMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Gateway Foam Insulators, Inc. v. Jokerst Paving & Contracting, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  3. Snadon v. GayerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Crank v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. C_ L_ R v. L_ B_ RMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977

7 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