Smith v. Hoffman, 375 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Hoffman, 375 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dimple \Denise\" Kelly v. City of Lee's Summit
unknown court · 2021 · confidence medium
Abbott v. Missouri Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 107 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lillian M. Lewellen v. Universal Underweriters Insurance Company Chad Franklin, Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC and CFS Enterprises, Inc.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Abbott v. Mo. Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 108 (Mo. App. 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert L. Johnson, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Auto Handling Corporation, and Cottrell, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
E.g., Abbot v. Mo. Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 107 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (noting MAI 17.02 was used in case involving gas company’s negligent failure to inspect, repair, and respond to gas leak, but court did not analyze whether MAI 17.02 was proper).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Advantage Buildings & Exteriors, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, the court acknowledged that it erred in submitting Instruction No. 8 but concluded that there was no prejudice based on Barnett, 963 S.W.2d 639 . “[T]he party offering the erroneous instruction has the burden of showing that the erroneous instruction ‘created no substantial potential for prejudicial effect.’ ” Abbott v. Missouri Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 107 (Mo.App.2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. McKeever's Enterprises, Inc.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Mathes, 200 S.W.3d at 105 . “[Wjhere there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.” Abbott v. Missouri, Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 109 (Mo.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roberta SMITH
v.
Hillary HOFFMAN, M.D.
Nos. WD 73565, WD 73569.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 5, 2012.
375 S.W.3d 104
Timothy Frets, Mary O’Connell, John Witten, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant, St. Joseph Med. Center., Brian Nieeswanger, Overland Park, KS, Lorraine Mosimann, Lee’s Summit, MO, for Appellant, Seematter, M.D., Walter Simpson, Daniel Craig, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

St. Joseph Medical Center and Dr. Hillary Hofmann Seematter appeal from the trial court’s decision to grant Ms. Roberta Smith’s motion for new trial.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).