Section 213

Citation: Section 213
Parent Document: Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1995-12-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666983/keeney-v-hereford-concrete-prod... ↗

Full Text

1,084 chars

I concur in all parts of the majority opinion except the determination that the term “retaliation” as used in Section 213.070 “includes any act done for the purpose of reprisal that results in damages to the plaintiff....” The majority superimposes onto the statute a damages requirement. Although at least nominal damages may be a part of most acts for which the legislation would provide redress, this case does not require a decision to so limit the statute. Furthermore, if the majority insists upon writing dicta, it should not do so in disregard of section 213.075.11(1), which provides remedies under the act. In addition, section 213.075.11(2) speaks of “vindicating the public interest.” Considering the purpose of the act and the remedies available, it cannot be said within the facts presented in this case that the “clear and unambiguous” meaning of section 213.070 mandates that the plaintiff sustain damages. --- 010combined --- 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
John KEENEY, Appellant, v. HEREFORD CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent. No. 78284.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text