Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

954 S.W.2d 581

Tallo v. Seay

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided September 30, 1997

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1997-09-30

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-09-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2010

11 state decisions

80199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Plaintiffs were injured in a three-vehicle accident. They sued the drivers of both of the other cars and the proprietors of a bar they alleged had sold liquor to one of the drivers while he was obviously intoxicated. Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. (“Grand Lin-dell”), the defendant bar owner, moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim against it in that plaintiffs failed to allege that the bar owner was convicted of selling alcohol to a person obviously intoxicated as required by section 537.053.3 RSMo 1994. The trial court granted Grand Lindell’s motion and the plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.

¶3No error of law appears. An opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only. This memorandum sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

¶4The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

/954/sw2d/581 · .json · Public domain