Legal Opinion

Doe v. O'CONNELL

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 24, 2004No. ED 82561PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff John Doe appeals the judgment dismissing with prejudice his claims against Bishop Anthony J. O’Connell and various Roman Catholic Dioceses on the ground that all of his claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 1 We affirm.

A motion to dismiss is solely a test of the adequacy of the plaintiffs petition. Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Mo. banc 1993). It assumes all of the plaintiffs averments are true and liberally grants to plaintiff all reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. No attempt is made to weigh any facts alleged as to whether they…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Rotella v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Nazeri v. Missouri Valley CollegeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  5. Harris-Laboy v. Blessing Hospital, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Graham v. McGrathMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Sonderegger v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2022
  3. in the Interest of H.N., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API