Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

919 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. Bi-State Development Agency, 567 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Mo. banc 1978); Carter v. St. John's Regional Medical Center, 88 *785 S.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.