Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 213

Citation
Section 213
Parent Document
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2018-02-06

Other Sections in This Document (127)

Full Text

1,072 chars
For other cases finding general objections to instructions to be ineffective to preserve specific arguments for appeal, see, e.g. , Barkley v. McKeever Enterprises, Inc. , 456 S.W.3d 829, 841 (Mo. banc 2015) (general objection that verdict director was "not supported by the evidence" was insufficient to preserve plaintiff's claim that certain batteries committed by merchant occurred after merchant recovered its merchandise from plaintiff, and were therefore not protected by "merchant's privilege"); Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp. , 408 S.W.3d 191, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (" 'a simple objection on the basis that the instruction fails to state the applicable law or fails to contain all of the necessary elements of a cause of action, standing alone, is considered a general objection, preserving nothing for appellate review' " (citation omitted)); McCrainey , 337 S.W.3d at 755 (an objection which "vaguely asserts that the instructions do not comply with M.A.I. without stating how they are deficient" is insufficient to preserve specific objections for review).