not-in-MAI instruction in Missouri

2023Trial counsel's effectiveness is "measured by what the law is at the time of trial." Collings v. State, 543 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Mo. banc 2018) (quoting Hoeber, 488 S.W.3d at 658 ).

2019Equity Mortg., Inc. v. Vinson, 371 S.W.3d 62 , 64–65 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)).

2019However, the not-in-MAI instruction must follow the applicable substantive law.” Id. (citing Am.

2019Johnson v. Auto Handling Corp. , 523 S.W.3d 452 , 463 (Mo. banc 2017) (concluding "a not-in-MAI instruction must follow substantive law by submitting the ultimate facts necessary to sustain a verdict") (quotation marks and alteration omitted).

2017He notes that while MAI 17.02 is written for motor vehicle cases, it can provide the model for other negligence submissions, citing as examples cases such as Joyce v. Nash, 630 S.W.2d 219 , 223 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982), and Trident Group v. Mississippi Valley Roofing, 279 S.W.3d 192, 199-200 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

2010In its amicus brief, the National Employment Lawyers Association argues that this Court recognized the public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Smith v. Arthur Baue Funeral Home, 370 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.1963).

1993In fact, to reverse a jury verdict on the grounds of instructional error regarding a not-in-MAI instruction, “it must appear that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury; the burden to prove the error rests with the party challenging the instruction.” MFA, 817 S.W.2d at 663 (citing Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 ).

1993In fact, to reverse a jury verdict on the grounds of instructional error regarding a not-in-MAI instruction, “it must appear that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury; the burden to prove the error rests with the party challenging the instruction.” MFA, 817 S.W.2d at 663 (citing Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 ).

1993Instruction No. 12, a Not-in-MAI instruction based on Thomasson v. Winsett, 310 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1958), charged the jury: INSTRUCTION NO. 12 In your verdict you must assess a percentage of fault to defendant Thomas Holcomb, if you believe: First, defendant Thomas Holcomb knowingly permitted his child Peter Holcomb to operate a motor vehicle upon the highway at the age of 13 years, and Second, either: defendant Peter Holcomb moved his vehicle from his lane of traffic when it was not safe to do so, or defendant Peter Holcomb drove at an excessive speed, or defendant Peter Holcomb passed the pla

1993Instruction No. 12, a Not-in-MAI instruction based on Thomasson v. Winsett, 310 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1958), charged the jury: INSTRUCTION NO. 12 In your verdict you must assess a percentage of fault to defendant Thomas Holcomb, if you believe: First, defendant Thomas Holcomb knowingly permitted his child Peter Holcomb to operate a motor vehicle upon the highway at the age of 13 years, and Second, either: defendant Peter Holcomb moved his vehicle from his lane of traffic when it was not safe to do so, or defendant Peter Holcomb drove at an excessive speed, or defendant Peter Holcomb passed the pla

1992In City’s fourth point, it alleges the trial court “erred in giving plaintiffs’ verdict directing instruction insofar as it incorrectly reflected the substantive law, was misleading and confusing and resulted in prejudice to [City].” The challenged verdict director, a not-in-MAI instruction, was patterned after the instruction in Mrad v. Missouri Edison Co., 649 S.W.2d 936 , 939 n. 1 (Mo.App.E.D.1983).

1990Verdict Form A prepared by plaintiffs reads: "On the claim of Plaintiffs ... for breach of contract against Defendant _” In oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that he had used the “conversion" verdict directing instruction approved in Boyd v. Wimes, supra, as a guide in preparing Instruction No. 6. .

1990Plaintiffs’ verdict director bespeaks a submission on a theory of conversion in keeping with the not-in-MAI instruction approved in Boyd v. Wimes, 664 S.W.2d 596 (Mo.App.1984).

1990In Maples, supra, plaintiffs sought damages claiming defendant had converted personal property belonging to them.

1984Paxton’s third argument against Instruction Number 9 was that the court improperly relied upon Stigers v. Harlow, 419 S.W.2d 41 (Mo.1967), a case where the Missouri Supreme Court approved a not-in-MAI instruction in a wrongful death situation.

1984Paxton improperly relies on Saunders v. Flippo, 639 S.W.2d 411 (Mo.App.1982), for the proposition that the insurance company has to make a clear showing that there was no prejudice to Paxton in using the not-in-MAI instruction.

1982National Beef Packing Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 479 S.W.2d 155 (Mo.App.1972) [4], The instruction here correctly specified the items of damage to which plaintiff was entitled.