Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Citation
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-07-23
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
- Wilkinson v. Dwiggins, 80 S.W.3d 849 (2002)
Full Text
887 charsDefendants, in their brief, concede this point, but contend that the trial court did not err in its judgment, as there was substantial evidence of intervening causation for the failure of the on-site sewage disposal system. Defendants argue that under the standard of Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. bane.1976), this, court should sustain the trial court because there is substantial evidence supporting the decision. Defendants argue that we should affirm the judgment even though the trial court erred in finding that the implied warranty could not be enforced. The trial judge did not make any factual findings as to the cause of the septic system’s failure. Therefore, we will not address the evidence. Thus, the judgment as to the septic system must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.