Section 20
- Citation
- Section 20
- Parent Document
- WEA Crestwood Plaza, L.L.C. v. Flamers Charburgers, Inc., 24 S.W.3d 1 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-01-11
Other Sections in This Document (101)
- WEA Crestwood Plaza, L.L.C. v. Flamers Charburgers, Inc., 24 S.W.3d 1 (2000)
- WEA Crestwood Plaza, L.L.C. v. Flamers Charburgers, Inc., 24 S.W.3d 1 (2000)
- WEA Crestwood Plaza, L.L.C. v. Flamers Charburgers, Inc., 24 S.W.3d 1 (2000)
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Section 20
Full Text
545 charsIn short, there is no basis for concluding that Landlord’s actions in prosecuting the First Suit in any manner constituted an election on its part to terminate the lease; and no material issue of fact exists as to that question. It is clear as a matter of law that Landlord sought only to terminate Tenant’s right to possession without terminating the lease, and equally clear that the judgment in the First Suit did not operate to terminate the lease and extinguish Tenant’s remaining obligations thereunder. 4 Thus, the trial court erred in *9