Legal Opinion · Dissent

Buemi v. Kerckhoff

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 2, 2011No. SC 91132Published

1Dissent

LAURA DENYIR STITH, Judge.

I respectfully dissent. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. The judgment below, denying Buemi’s motion to enforce settlement but granting its related motion for sanctions for bad faith in settlement negotiations, properly was certified for interlocutory review under Rule 74.01(b) because it is a separate claim that constitutes a distinct judicial unit the resolution of which involves issues entirely separate from those remaining for trial below. This Court therefore has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rule 74.01(b), and determine whether the award…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Will v. HallockSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

29 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