St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- Citation
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- Parent Document
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-06-04
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
- St. Louis County v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 507 (1996)
Full Text
1,314 charsThe Riddle case, however, is not disposi-tive of the case before us. The three-party situation in Riddle arose as a result of a third party intervening in the original action between Riddle and Dean. Because the rights of the intervenor were limited to the rights of Riddle against Dean, Dean was not faced with multiple exposures for a single claim. Id. at 260. In contrast, the instant action involves two distinct actions: one an equity action in which the County sought a permanent injunction against both Green and Taylor-Morley to abate certain violations of the County’s building codes; and the other an action at law in which Green cross-claimed against Taylor-Morley for monetary damages incurred as a result of Taylor-Morley’s violating the building codes. The trial court entered one judgment for monetary damages in favor of Green on his cross-claim and another judgment for money damages in favor of Green on County’s claim. The damages, although awarded in two distinct actions, nevertheless arose as a result of Taylor-Morley’s failure to comply with the County’s building codes and the requisite abatement of the violations. The trial court’s two awards of separate money damages to Green subjected Taylor-Morley to double exposure for its act of failing to comply with the County’s building codes.