Section 517
- Citation
- Section 517
- Parent Document
- Rahman v. Matador Villa Associates, 821 S.W.2d 102 (1991)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1991-12-17
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Rahman v. Matador Villa Associates, 821 S.W.2d 102 (1991)
- Rahman v. Matador Villa Associates, 821 S.W.2d 102 (1991)
- Rahman v. Matador Villa Associates, 821 S.W.2d 102 (1991)
- Rahman v. Matador Villa Associates, 821 S.W.2d 102 (1991)
- Rahman v. Matador Villa Associates, 821 S.W.2d 102 (1991)
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
- Section 517
Full Text
596 charsIn each of the three cases cited the pleadings were made up at a time when the case was pending before a circuit judge in the probate division or an associate circuit judge and not while the case was pending *104before a circuit judge, the court of appeals or the Supreme Court. Therefore, Rule 41.01(b) should not have been relied on. In Lankheit the case was consolidated from two cases, one a probate case and the other a Chapter 517 proceeding. To the extent that Lankheit was a Chapter 517 proceeding, the appellate court could properly have relied on Rule 41.01(f) to reach the same result.