Cluster 1593644

See DeLong v. Hilltop Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 834, 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (“An owner of property may testify as to its value.”); Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 182 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006), overruled by on other grounds by Badahman v. Catering St.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 173 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (overruled on other grounds by Badahman v. Catering St.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 170 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (overruled in part on other grounds in Badahman v. Catering St.

Bank counters that section 407.025 only authorizes suit by a private citizen under the MMPA when the actions taken by the seller are “declared unlawful by section 407.020.” It argues that because section. 407.020.2(2) expressly provides that nothing in section 407.020 applies to a financial institution subject to Chapter 362, its alleged actions in the Meyers’ petition are not declared unlawful by section 407.020 and, therefore, section 407.025 does not provide a private rig…

The MMPA was enacted “to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play, and right dealings in public transactions,” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 160 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006), and prohibits “deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce.” Mo. Rev.

(FACC ¶¶ 314-328.) The MMPA was enacted “to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play, and right dealings in public transactions,” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 160 (Mo. Ct.App.2006), and prohibits “deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce.” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 407.020(…

Relying on Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 176 (Mo.App.

When interpreting a statute, we begin with the language chosen by the legislature. “ ‘If the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, by giving the language used in the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, then we are bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction in interpreting the statute.’ ” Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450, 455 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 166 (Mo.App.

“If the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, by giving the language used in the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, then we are bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction in interpreting the statute.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 161 (Mo.App.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 170 (Mo.App.2006).

In re Mahony, 374 B.R. at 719 . 2 Of course, federal cases interpreting Missouri law “are not binding on this court interpreting our own state statute.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 167 (Mo.App.

"If the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, by giving the language used in the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, then we are bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction in interpreting the statute." Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 161 (Mo.App.2006).

A party “ ‘may introduce evidence to rebut that of his or her adversary, and for this purpose any competent evidence to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the adversary’s proof is admissible.’ ” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 164 (Mo.App.2006), quoting, Govreau v. Nu-Way Concrete Forms, Inc., 73 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Mo.App.2002).

“If the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, by giving the language used in the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, then we are bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction in interpreting the statute.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 166 (Mo.App.2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

“An error in the admission or exclusion of evidence will only result in reversal if the appellant was prejudiced by it.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 165 (Mo.App.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 173 (Mo.App.2006).

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 184 (Mo.App.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 167 (Mo.App.

Louis, 939 S.W.2d 907 (Mo. banc 1997)); Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 166 (Mo.App.

As in this matter, “[w]here the legislature statutorily authorizes an award of attorney’s fees in the discretion of the trial court ... the granting or refusal to grant attorney’s fees is reviewable for an abuse of discretion.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 170 (Mo.App.2006) (internal citation omitted).

As in this matter, "[w]here the legislature statutorily authorizes an award of attorney's fees in the discretion of the trial court ... the granting or refusal to grant attorney's fees is reviewable for an abuse of discretion." Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 170 (Mo.App.2006) (internal citation omitted).

Section 490.065.3 provides that with respect to evidence relied upon by experts, “facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reasonably reliable.” 20 Indeed, “an expert may base his opinion on facts and data derived from s…

"The assessment of damages is primarily a function for the jury." Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 180 (Mo.App.

See also Doe, 207 S.W.3d at 62 ; Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 176 (Mo.App.2006).

See, e.g., Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 104 F.3d 472, 479 (1st Cir.1997); Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 176 (Mo.Ct.App.2006); Brown, 36 Hous.

Missouri courts have noted that the MMPA “was enacted to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play, and right dealings in public transactions.” See, e.g., Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 160 (Mo.App.

Standard ofRevieiu “The assessment of damages is primarily a function for the jury.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 180 (Mo.App.

Standard of Review “[T]he granting or refusal to grant attorney’s fees is reviewable for an abuse of discretion.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 170 (Mo.App.

See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). *922 “The MMPA was enacted to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play, and right dealings in public transactions.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 160 (Mo.Ct.App.2006).

"The MMPA was enacted to preserve fundamental honesty, fair play, and right dealings in public transactions." Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 160 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 171 (Mo.App.2006).

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 166 (Mo.App.2006).

“A trial court abuses its discretion, as to the admissibility of evidence, when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 164 (Mo.App.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 164 (Mo.App.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 184 (Mo.App.

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 161 (Mo.App.2006).

See 215 S.W.3d 145, 173 (Mo.App.2007); 687 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Mo.App.1985).

See Savant, 899 S.W.2d at 122 (a sufficient foundation was established to admit evidence of absence of other accidents involving hydraulic jack where manager of engineering and service manager testified that accidents and problems with equipment were to be reported to them, that the jack was used daily to lift transmissions in repair shops throughout the country, and no other incidents similar to that of plaintiffs had been reported.) Furthermore, the evidence of lack of the…

W.D.2010) (“Because Appellant has failed to identify in its argument what prejudice it suffered from the trial court’s admission of this evidence, there is nothing for this court to review.”); see also Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 165 (Mo.App.