Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maupin v. Tankersley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 15, 2018No. 2016–SC–000572–DGPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

VANMETER, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:

I concur with so much of the majority opinion as analyzes the facts of this case and directs that in future cases, jury instructions should reflect concepts of comparative fault. That said, I respectfully dissent with so much of the majority opinion *362as reverses and remands this case for a new trial since a review of the record and trial proceedings discloses that Maupin failed to present her theory of the case to the trial court in the form of jury instructions such she should not now be heard to complain. CR 1 51(3).

The earliest…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. SmithKentucky Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Bush v. WathenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
  3. Bradford v. CliftonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1964
  4. Cockerham v. . NixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1850
  5. Scudamore v. HortonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1968

5 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