Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Citation
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Parent Document
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1988-07-26
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
Full Text
435 charsAppellants first contend that the trial court erred in overruling their motion for a directed verdict on respondents’ counterclaim. They claim that the trial court should have ruled as a matter of law that the respondents were not entitled to recover their security deposit because paragraph 5 of the restaurant lease is clear and not ambiguous regarding the conditions of a refund and thus, the issue should not have gone to the jury.