Ritterbusch v. New London Oil Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SPINDEN, Judge.
New London Oil Company, Inc., obtained a judgment against Robert L. Ritterbusch in a Pennsylvania court in 1987, but it did not execute the judgment allegedly within Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations.1 New London Oil registered its judgment in Missouri. Ritterbusch contends that the circuit court should have set aside the registration because New London Oil did not register the appropriate Pennsylvania judgment in accordance with Rule 74.14. He also contends that § 516.190, RSMo 1994, Missouri’s “borrowing statute,” should bar enforcement of *874the judgment because…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Alexander Construction Co. v. WeaverCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1979
- Walnut Grove Products v. SchnellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
- Kostenbader v. KueblerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Foley v. FoleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- Strick Corp. v. Western Trailer Service, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1989
3Cited by5 opinions
- Le Credit Lyonnais, SA v. NaddDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
- Food Services Corp. v. RheamMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
- Logemann Holding, Inc. v. LieberAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Logemann Holding, Inc. v. LieberAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Amusement and Music Operators of Texas, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1999