Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Citation
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Parent Document
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1980-02-05
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1632479/hurwitz-v-kohm/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (32)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
- Hurwitz v. Kohm, 594 S.W.2d 643 (1980)
Full Text
866 chars. Apparently the only defense appellant raised in the first suit and the only point raised on appeal was that respondents had failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. Though this court found considerable authority to the effect that a lessor is under no duty to mitigate upon a lessee’s default, it did not base its affirmance of the trial court on that ground. The court found rather that respondents’ motion for summary judgment was accompanied by an affidavit of respondents’ real estate agent attesting to the unsuccessful efforts to-relet the premises; that appellant neglected to file an opposing affidavit; that appellant was therefore deemed to have admitted the facts alleged in the affidavit submitted by respondents; and that there therefore existed no genuine issue as to any material fact. Hurwitz v. Kohm, 516 S.W.2d 33, 37 (Mo.App.1974).