Robin Farms, Inc. v. Bartholome, 989 S.W.2d 238 (1999)

Citation: Robin Farms, Inc. v. Bartholome, 989 S.W.2d 238 (1999)
Parent Document: Robin Farms, Inc. v. Bartholome, 989 S.W.2d 238 (1999)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1999-04-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2453209/robin-farms-inc-v-bartholome/ ↗

Full Text

953 chars

The appellants raise four points on appeal. In Point I, they claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying John Fay and Robin Farms’s motion for change of judge because a reasonable person would question the impartiality of the Honorable Gary E. Ravens presiding over their case. In Point II, the appellants claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter sanctions against John and Karen Fay, Robin Farms, Harlow Fay, and their attorney because, in filing their motion for sanctions, the respondents violated Rule 55.03(c). In Point III, they claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling John Fay and Robin Farms’s December 18, 1997, motion for continuance because, under the SSCRA, the trial court was required to grant the continuance. In their Point IV, the appellants claim that the trial court erred in sustaining the respondents’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for ejectment because *242

Other Sections in This Document (172)

Full Text