Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Citation
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1992-06-16
Other Sections in This Document (38)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
Full Text
573 charsThe court has the discretion to impose a penalty within the statutory range, after consideration of the attendant circumstances. There is no mandatory penalty. This limitation complements our interpretation of what constitutes a “wrongful” withholding in violation of the statute. A landlord should never be unduly penalized for violation of the statute because a court is allowed to consider the reason a security deposit was withheld. A reasonable explanation might persuade the court to minimize the penalty, and conversely, an improper motive would enhance the penalty.