Legal Opinion · Dissent

Buchweiser v. Estate of Laberer

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 7, 1985No. 66769Published

1Dissent

ALMON H. MAUS, Special Judge,

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent.

It has been the general rule that an executor or administrator does not remove the barrier of the Dead Man’s Statute by prosecuting to a conclusion a cause of action of his decedent. Flanagan v. DeLapp, 533 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. banc 1976); Estate of Rogers v. Courier, 429 S.W.2d 258 (Mo.1968); Crockett v. Morelock, 608 S.W.2d 530 (Mo.App.1980). This has been true whether the cause of action was presented by petition, Edwards v. Durham, 346 S.W.2d 90 (Mo.1961), or counterclaim, Bildner v. Giacoma, 522 S.W.2d 83 (Mo.App.1975). The…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Edwards v. DurhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
  2. Flanagan v. DeLappSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  3. Bildner v. GiacomaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. DeMott v. DillinghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Estate of Rogers v. CourierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968

1 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