Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)

Citation
Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
Parent Document
Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1996-05-28

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text

533 chars
On April 12,1995, Tonkin filed a Motion to Dismiss Count IV of appellants’ Second Amended Petition. He did so on three grounds. First, he averred that Count IV failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that Tonkin interfered with a hen held by appellants. Second, he alleged that the Second Amended Petition failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege essential elements of conspiracy. Third, he claimed that appellants failed to join an indispensable party by dismissing their claim against Connor.