Legal Opinion
Hudson v. Riverport Performance Arts Centre
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 2000No. ED 77306PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARY M. GAERTNER, Presiding Judge.
Appellants, David and Susan Hudson, (“appellants”), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting motions for summary judgment in favor of the respondents, Riverport Performance Arts Centre, Joint Venture, Contemporary Investment Corp ., Sverdr-up/MDRC Joint Venture; McDonnell Douglas Realty Co., Contemporary Productions, Inc., (collectively, “Riverport”), and BMW Entertainment Services, Inc., (“BMW”), denying the appellants’ motion for leave to file a third amendment by interlineation. We affirm.
On July 26, 1996, appellants filed…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- Thummel v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1978
- Faheen Ex Rel. Hebron v. City Parking Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1987
- Curnutt v. Scott Melvin Transport, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995
- Meadows v. Friedman Railroad Salvage WarehouseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Richardson v. QuikTrip Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2002
- CDP Event Services, Inc. v. AtchesonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2008
- Cook v. DeSoto Fuels, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2005
- Aziz ex rel. Brown v. Jack in the Box, Eastern Division, LPMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
- Ali Aziz, By and Through his Natural Mother and Next Friend, Annette Brown v. Jack in the Box, Eastern Division, LP, a Limited Partnership, and Jack in the Box, Inc., a CorporationMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.