Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)

Citation: Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Parent Document: Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2002-11-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1890960/rathbun-v-cato-corp/ ↗

Full Text

915 chars

Our courts have held on numerous occasions that an objection for “lack of foundation” is a general objection and is not sufficiently specific to preserve the issue for appellate review. Nagel v. BiState Development Agency, 567 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Mo. banc 1978); Carter v. St. John’s Regional Medical Center, 88 *785S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. S.D.2002). This is because it fails to apprise the trial court of the specific foundational element considered deficient. Barish v. Director of Revenue, 872 S.W.2d 167, 175 (Mo.App. W.D.1994). “Where the objection is that an inadequate foundation has been laid it is ‘particularly important’ that the objection made be specific because foundation deficiencies can frequently be remedied.” State v. Brown, 949 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). The same is true of an objection that the question calls for speculation where, as here, the real basis is failure to lay a foundation. Id.

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text