Legal Opinion

Meinhold v. Huang

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1985No. 48169, 48193PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GAERTNER, Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Meinhold and defendant Mike Huang each appeal from the order of the trial court granting Huang’s motion for a new trial, but denying Huang’s motion for judgment n.o.v. after the jury returned a verdict for Meinhold for $33,898.50 in Meinhold’s action submitted on the theory of promissory estoppel. We affirm the action of the trial court and remand the cause.

Huang contends the trial court erred in not granting his motion for judgment n.o.v. because Meinhold’s action is barred by the Statute of Frauds. Meinhold contends the trial court erred in granting a new…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. C & K ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS v. Amber Steel Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Karashin v. Haggard Hauling & Rigging, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1983
  3. Wahl v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  4. Robbins v. Jewish Hospital of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Feinberg v. Pfeiffer CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1959

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Acetylene Gas Co. v. OliverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Blackburn v. Habitat Development Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. Geisinger v. a & B FARMS, INC.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Robert Stoetzel, and Cross-Appellee v. Continental Textile Corporation of America, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
  5. Moore v. Firstar BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003

11 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