Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Monarch Fire Protection District of St. Louis County v. Freedom Consulting & Auditing Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided July 7, 2011No. 10-1825Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGruender, Circuit Judge

I join all of the court’s opinion except that part holding that the expansive terms of Section 7.H(i) do not entitle Monarch to the attorneys’ fees that it incurred in successfully pursuing its breach-of-contract claim against Freedom and its claim for injunctive relief against all the defendants.

While under Missouri law each litigant generally must bear his attorney’s fees, “[o]nce liability on a contract has been determined, damages in the form of attor*640ney’s fees permitted under the contract follow as a matter of law.” State ex rel. Chase Resorts, Inc. v. Campbell, 913 S.W.2d 832, 835…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Dunn Industrial Group, Inc. v. City of Sugar CreekSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  2. Schmidt v. Utilities Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1944
  3. State Ex Rel. Chase Resorts, Inc. v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Nusbaum v. City of Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  5. Baca v. New Mexico State Highway DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971

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