*1 (Mo.1963) (defendant attempted charge C. 79-year-old to rid home- exorbitant amount finally challenges sufficiency Shaw powder-post beetle owner nonexistent conviction support of the evidence to Smith, infestation), v. and State He that beyond a reasonable doubt. claims (defendant (Mo.1959) de- S.W.2d put failed to on sufficient evi- State conducting cursory elderly victim ceived knowingly willfully he dence that acted falsely declaring wiring that the inspection, committing charged. in the crimes at that a fire could start so deficient right jury to a Shaw waived his exorbitant any charging moment and and, appeal, judg trial trial court’s unnecessary repairs). amount do ment deference as a is afforded same case, jury properly each inferred Viewing jury’s Rule 27.01 verdict. necessary intent to defraud from sur- light in the favorable to the evidence most Fields, rounding circumstances. State, judg we will affirm the trial court’s 468; Smith, at at 324 S.W.2d 705. ment if there is substantial evidence to case, present in The evidence both support findings. Giffin, its 640 S.W.2d at circumstantial, compel- less direct and recognizes ability 130. This standard This a sufficient ling. evidence formed see, hear, judge of the trial court from the trial court could con- basis which rather than from the person, witnesses doubt, clude, beyond a that reasonable ap cold record with which we left on guilty on each of the four counts Shaw was peal. Blankenship, State v. 830 S.W.2d merchandising practices. of unlawful (Mo. banc point is denied. The he Shaw claims that cannot be held criminally responsible he did not because homes, any
personally inspect of the that IV. personally perform any he of the did trial judgment The of the court is af- work, personally sign he did not that firmed. in at sales contract least one of the inci dents, personally he did and that make All concur. any misrepresentations in two of the cases. responds that it need not show State performed personally Shaw
acts because amended information committing him these
charged with acts knowingly
alone oth “or concert with argues need
ers.” State that it requisite possessed
show that Shaw state, intent, acted in mental and with that GRAUE, Plaintiff-Respondent, Doug concert with others to 407.- violate Section I, above, 020. As set in Section there out MISSOURI PROPERTY INSURANCE support a find was substantial evidence to FACILITY, PLACEMENT committed, ing Shaw and acted con Defendant-Appellant. committed, others who the acts cert with Also, preced charged. as discussed No. 74899. section, ing there was substantial evidence Missouri, Supreme Court of finding he did so support En Bane. requisite mental state. 23, 1993. Feb. upheld has twice the suffi- This Court strikingly similar ciency of evidence Rehearing March Denied arising former false cases under Missouri’s statute, 561.450, RSMo pretenses Section 1, 1978). (repealed, January See Fields, 467-68
State *3 Crow, Kennett,
Wendell W. for defen- dant-appellant. Wilson, Dexter, plaintiff-
Dennis P. for respondent.
HOLSTEIN, Judge. Doug this action brought
Plaintiff following of a dwell- the total destruction Hayti, He ing house fire in Missouri. $5,000 alleged he had insured house for under a issued Mis- policy defendant Property souri Insurance Placement Facili- (hereinafter ty “Facility”). Following a tri- stipulated al to the court on a record exhibits, testimony deposition included events,” “chronology judgment was . entered for Graue.
After this case transferred opinion, was to this the Missouri Court Court District. The Appeals, basis Southern in case- transfer was an asserted conflict requirement construing statutory law or notice of a “notice of cancellation That found 379.845.2.1 nonrenewal” § addressed issue need not be because noted. All references to statutes will be RSMo unless otherwise then transmit the support in this case the trial court’s Bond & Associates would facts payments in force on policy conclusion that the regardless con- the date of the loss application process The same and the of the statute. flict in the construction quotation same notice of renewal and by Facility premium were issued on Decem- The of review is that standard 12, 1989, ber and mailed to Bond & Associ- Carron, Murphy stated ates. notice indicated that the current (Mo.banc When record 9, 1990, policy expire was to fac stipulated but not all ultimate facts or quoted $102 conceded, inferences have been tual usual, following year. notice, again stipulated facts in the Court reviews the following included the statements: *4 respondent light most ánd favorable your pol- In RENEWAL order to renew ap to disregards inferences favorable lapse coverage, payment in icy with no Doniphan pellant. Murphy Telephone v. expiration must be received before 372, 616, Co., Mo. 147 S.W.2d 620 347 payment is re- date indicated If above. (1941); Claspill, v. 545 S.W.2d McHenry expiration date ceived on or after the 690, (Mo.App.1976); and Adams v. 693 above, coverage be effective shown will 289, White, (Mo.App.1972). 293 488 S.W.2d day A.M. time the follow- 12:01 standard reaches the judgment A bench tried which payment provided pay- ing receipt aside if correct result will not be set even forty-five days ment is received within gives wrong or insufficient the trial court a expiration date. from Fitz judgment. Edgar reason for its following: also included the The notice 314, (Mo.banc patrick, 377 S.W.2d 318 in Payment must be IMPORTANT 634, 1964); Brown, 814 S.W.2d Clark check, certified bank draft or form a (Mo.App.1991); Re 643 v. Crouse Orrock money payable order to: Missouri Fair Inc., 929, (Mo.App. altors, 932 813 S.W.2d for amount as shown and Plan due Co., 1991); 813 Ernst v. Ford Motor Plan, Olive, Fair 906 mailed to: Missouri 910, (Mo.App.1991). The facts S.W.2d 1000, Louis, Please Suite St. MO. 63101. principles in with these mind. are reviewed copy of this notice with return indicated is your payment. This Facility statutory entity is a made you will receive. notice authorized to do up property of all insurers following: you “If have Below was the Its purpose in Missouri. to business your agent.” any questions, please contact persons insurance to who provide property to days before the insurance was Several to are entitled to insurance but unable 1990, from expire in Graue received letter through ordinary methods. coverage obtain “Bring your saying, Bond & Associates Facility refers to to 379.880. 379.810 §§ 9, [January money my office before Fair Plan.” policies these as “the Missouri keep in in order the insurance 1990] application first Graue submitted property.” copy A force on this through Facility Bond Asso insurance to & While Facility from was enclosed. notice ciates, agency in Caruthers- an insurance the insurance Facility’s notice conditioned ville, Missouri, 9, 1983. on December nothing in coverage receipt payment, on application accepted for Thereafter the was agent says insurance notice year year. every In from period of one of Fa- accept payment on behalf could not 1988, through applications for renew cility. through Facility Bond & als were made letter, Facility ap- issued a notice of re conformity Associates. Graue with premium in on quoted an annual office peared newal and at Bond & Associates’ 8,1990. Maclin, the insur- year. January of each The notices Deanna December Associates, money, indicated Bond & who took renewal were mailed to ance get St. Louis premium may not Bond & Associates would that the not to Graue. “Well, just go responded, pay pre notify who would time. Graue then up When the get it on there.” Apparently, ahead Associates. mium to Bond & authority.” Utley explained if she to Graue kind Lumber Co. v. was asked 610, Bootheel, money get to Louis that if the did not St. Bank policy expired, (Mo.App.1991); he would see Hamilton Haul- before the also “No, I coverage, replied, Cory., I’m sure ing, have she Inc. v. GAF Instead, payment Clearly, took the course (Mo.App.1986). she usual didn’t.” payable to dealing prior years & Associates’ check developed issued Bond had $102, it mailing Facility only acquiesced in the amount had but which January 8,1990, although late the envel- cooperated by dealing on with had ope January 1990. postmarked through & The insur- Associates. notices, provided agency was with the ance January dwelling on The insured burned inspections, processed ap- coordinated On Graue advised premiums. collected plications, and loss, and Bond & Bond Associates called The check Associates relating statutes received St. Louis premium was reinforce the conclusion that Bond & Asso day, Facility January 12. On that returned to receive the ciates along & Associates check Bond Facility. The statute premium on behalf of coverage explaining there a letter creating Facility presupposes policies litigation This ensued. force. *5 by by Facility a issued have been solicited in this is dispositive issue case Chapter producer.” “licensed 379.830. § Bond Associates had whether & pro term “licensed does not define the 379 authority accept payment premiums to of only meaning toway ducer.” The breathe of issue agent as an The ultimate the is to refer to the into word “licensed” authority directly con of was not law, provi general which has insurance by the stipulation. ceded or refuted Deter licensing agents, relating sions to the of had mining Bond Associates whether & brokers, 375.014, licensing of § apparent authority accept to pari These are in 375.071. statutes § Facility of some dis on behalf necessitates provisions chapter of 379 materia with agency only cussion not of law of but ignored having bearing as no and cannot be insurance, the of rules contrac law producers whom “licensed” insurance on construction, application tual and also represent in the insurance transactions. par principles of those to facts may agent an of the A broker be case. ticular insured, depending on the insurer or of the Missouri follows the Restatement particular of a case. Schimmel Fur facts apparent authority rule ex Agency Co., Indemnity 440 v. American Co. ists to the extent that it is reasonable However, (Mo.1969). 932, an 938 S.W.2d person dealing agent to for a third agent by is definition more re insurance agent is that the authorized. Re believe agent an insurance By definition stricted. (Second) (1958); 8 Agency statement § agent ordinarily “an of the insurer” and Quarries, Bell, 454 Inc. Jeff-Cole 375.012(4). agent an of the insured. not § (Mo.1970). 5, person’s 13 a S.W.2d When producer” is broad The term “licensed it to is such that is reasonable conduct agents insurance enough include both person authority has to act for believe agents Because insurance and brokers. another, the other has reason to know produc “licensed meaning within the fall it, per a conduct and allows third of such usually ers,” agency is it follows that such reasonably conclude that the con may son insurer, and a broker agency for an authority Apparent duct is authorized. activity is act engaging identical while “position if a may created virtue of be agent. an ing as insurance into, knowingly puts agent or principal an Maclin, co-owners position in one of the agent occupy Ms. permits the Associates, & formerly Bond per what was according ordinary habits of which agent’s insurance it had an locality, profession, stated that she in the trade or sons Bond & repeatedly referred to particular She agent to have license. is usual for that own, agent agency money a fidu- as an insurance her but receives the Associates point ciary at one the bulk of insurer. The stat- and noted 375.051. § agent an for one relating their business was as relationship utes between evidence company. No direct establishes soliciting agents insurance es- insurers and Maclin or Bond & Associates had that Ms. Fa- industry. tablish the standard for the license. The an insurance brokers cility ignorance cannot claim stat- these could conclude that method which one gen- practices. utes and A member of the an insurance bro- Bond Associates was public right rely eral has on However, ker is inference. inferences industry general rules of as well as law favorably in this must construed record be practices dealing when with insurance Thus, Bond & Associates will be Graue. authority agents. Secret limitations authority having other than treated as soliciting agent may valid of a insurance be agent. an insurance insurer do between the but negate soliciting agent’s apparent agent may An be one of insurance parties. authority third v. Du- Dudley agent may types. An insurance be a two Mont, (Mo.App.1975). agent” authority to enter “general who has binding on the insurer. contracts Corder Maclin, agent, Ms. insurance Co., Morgan Roofing 855 Mo. did not inform Mr. that she could contrast, (1946). By S.W.2d premium. Generally, insur accept merely a “solicit may be agents may premiums ance collect for the agent” limited to ing whose knowledge insurer. full collecting premiums soliciting policies, dealing developed course of that had over Family Ins. the like. American Mutual years & Asso between Graue Bach, (Mo.1971). Co. v. *6 Facility undoubtedly aware ciates. was by program The insurance created premiums were collected that Graue’s 379.810, amalgam in seq., an et creates § premium The notice agency. the insurance up property of all insurance surer made authority to agent’s the did disclaim provides amalgam The insurer carriers. premium. favorably to receive the Viewed coverage property insurance for certain premium notice respondent, payment the industry risks. As a matter of law and telling any questions Mr. to submit compa agents the insurance practice, all of Asso agent, to the the letter from Bond & involved, brokers, autho nies as well as are money instructing deliver ciates him to for rized to insurance customers solicit 9, January fact to its before and the office amalgam insurer. effect is that all premium Ms. without that Maclin took and bro agents licensed licensed authority no explaining that she had kers, collectively referred to as “licensed Facility demonstrate collect it on behalf of Facili soliciting agents are for producers,” Mr. reliance was reasonable. that Graue’s ty- warning gave no that she Ms. Maclin general rule, soliciting a a As premium nor authority to collect the no company has the agent for an insurance warning that the does the notice contain a authority2 law implied under Missouri premiums agent authority no to collect has discharge necessary to everything do of the receipt Her facility. on behalf of hand, including soliciting insur at business disclaiming such authori premium without ance, delivering policies, collecting premi au ty entirely is consistent ums, waiving precedent. conditions and thority. v. General American Burckhardt Life reinforcing that Also the conclusion Co., (Mo.App.1975). Ins. 534 S.W.2d collected, acting insur- as an Bond & Associates was premiums are an insurance When receiving the Facility in his or money ance agent does not take given agent. general express authority Re- recognize implied is not the 2. We (1958). (Second) Agency 7 cmt. C authority. § is The former a statement same as of express authority implied authorization. grant specific Here is no from more there ROBERTSON, C.J., premium premium ambiguity is the of the PRICE LIMBAUGH, JJ., concur. premium mere- notice. The notice was not part ly billing but of the contract was J., BENTON, separate opinion in dissents policy condi- setting forth terms filed. becoming ef- precedent policy tions J., THOMAS, separate opinion in dissents Either of two reasonable conclu- fective. filed. payment be reached as to when sions could may here have COVINGTON, J., was effective. The notice opinions concurs payment THOMAS, was effective when meant BENTON and JJ. received St. Louis when received BENTON, Judge, dissenting. having authority payment one collect principal opinion affirms the result Graue, in response
premiums invoking special of the trial court producing agent, directions by emphasizing of review and se- standard premium to the office brought before lective facts. so, doing he fol- was important procedural Two facts dominate lowing agent, precise- the directions of the First, trial court heard this case. ly as form he was instructed to do Instead, testimony. live evidence supplied by Facility. notice stipulation of presented facts and the Graue, testimony Doug open deposition is fairly Where a contract Maclin, Deanna interpretations, plaintiff-respondent, con two or more (including deposi- adopted his insurance against struction will be which exhibits). Second, the trial court made tion prepared contract. one who John findings facts and conclusions of law on Hensley, Deere 527 S.W.2d Co. plead it—that the Missouri issue (Mo. ambiguities in 1975). Similarly, banc (the Property Facility Placement Insurance insurance contracts resolved favor give “Facility”) required to a notice of the insured. Mutual Ins. Shelter Co. expire. policy can nonrenewal before a Brooks, (Mo. banc implicates evidence other some While 1985). Construing ambiguity against case— points, the other two issues in this the payment favor apparent authority of & Associ- to Bond Associates as a *7 accept premiums to and bind the Facil- ates soliciting agent effectively payment mailing premium this ity, and the effect of Facility, & accepted to which was Bond Facility clearly first raised Facility. on of Associates behalf —were Appeals, brief to the Court of Graue’s favorably to de- judge’s Viewed the trial District. Southern cision, prudent person ordinarily an would prop- all are Assuming that three issues that Bond & Associates was the believe Court, erly this the law and the before and, therefore, agent soliciting of court, reversing support the trial evidence authority pay- accept had to the affirming it. fully Facility. Facility, although ment for circumstances, nothing said aware of the Proper I. The Review Standard of premium payment notice which its would key opinion The difference between this fact, Graue of such disabuse belief. opinion the principal the is standard of and ambiguities in notice and Facility left the re- the standard of review review. Once to seek of the encouraged Graue the advice decisions and Rules quired this Court’s any question. there be When should determined, clearly shows is evidence 8, 1990, de- January until to Graue waited must reversed. below be that the decision doing so rea- premium, he was liver his from the rep- “[Wjhere are derived the facts reliance on & Associates’ sonable exhibits, deposi- and stipulations, made payment pleadings, should be resentation that tions, the trial deference is due 9, judgment The ... no prior Southgate Bank & judgment.” court’s affirmed. 786 516, make May, S.W.2d 519 which first authorized this Court to v. 696
Trust Co. Board (Mo.App.1985); procedure. see also Sheldon v. rules At time of Doni- Sys- the Police Retirement phan Telephone, Trustees there was statute 1989); 553, (Mo. tem, 554 banc governing appellate 779 S.W.2d rule review. 745 Douglas Corp., v. McDonnell Johnson case, 73.01(c) Rule this In this instructs (Mo. 661, 1988); 662 banc Bremen S.W.2d evidence, in accor- Court review Muskopf, 817 S.W.2d Trust Co. v. Bank & decision, court but dance with trial 602, (Mo.App.1991);Housing Authori- 604 proper rather to determine the factual Boone, v. 747 County Louis ty St. legal conclusion. 311, (Mo.App.1988). Deference 313 S.W.2d required only the trial court has when opportunity to determine the superior had a II. Application Standard namely where credibility of the Review witnesses— testimony. Rule 73.- live there has been opinion principal the trial affirms Otherwise, 01(c)(2). is in nature review theory on Bond & court Associates 73.01(c)(1); equity. see a suit in Rule accept payment 30, Carrón, v. 536 S.W.2d Murphy also To and bind the recover on (Mo. banc authority, plaintiff basis case, Where, the trial court 1) possessed must that: he a careful show testimony and did not consid- heard no live prudent has au- belief that issue, there is no er now-determinative 2) principal; thority act on behalf of in accordance reason to view evidence rea- principal must known or had have judgment. trial court’s Schroeder with the conduct, agent’s son to know of the 742, (Mo. Horack, banc v. 592 S.W.2d 3) conduct; plaintiff allow such 1979). Instead, should draw the this Court reasonably relying must acted on have legal from proper factual conclusions Quarries, Inc. agent’s conduct. Jeff-Cole the evidence. Id. Bell, (Mo.1970); see 12-13 v. principal opinion cited cases 13.07(1) 13.07(2). MAI also appellate on the law of review founded does) (as opinion Assuming principal rule on as it before statute or existed that, agent, Bond as an insurance & Associ- (let Carrón). subject Murphy alone authority to possess apparent ates could Claspill, 545 S.W.2d McHenry v. Facility,1 act on Graue—the behalf solely on Adams (Mo.App.1976),relies proof plaintiff burden White, (Mo.App.1972) 488 S.W.2d —failed rea- prove prove To reasonable reliance. and Semo Motor v. National Mutual Co. have Co., (Mo. party sonable reliance “must not Insurance turn, eyes warning closed or inconsistent App.1964). Adams, solely relies *8 Quarries, Motor, solely Semo which relies on Mur- circumstances.” Jeff-Cole Co, major inconsistent cir- phy Doniphan Telephone S.W.2d at 13. (Mo.1941). premium Doniphan is the notice received 619-20 cumstance Telephone Constitution, predates by stating: the 1945 Graue No, pieces 1. There are several A. evidence which none whatsoever. opin- assumption principal Second, undercut this that & Asso- Maclin later testified First, represented business,” ion. Graue, Maclin that testified she presumably "brokerage ciates had Facility: not acting agents as clients rather than as their Q. Property not You’re of Missouri Finally, agents companies. of insurancé Facility, you Insurance Placement are what premium quote & Associ- was not sent Bond they producer? call Rather, Facility’s sent ates it was choice. A. Yes. application to Bond & Associates because Q. working actually You're for the customer requested coverage filed on Graue’s behalf that comes in? A. Yes. Associates, it sent to Bond & instead be strong- together Graue. All of these taken facts Q. You all have no whatever to suggest ly that Bond Associates was the coverage bind insurance for Missouri Graue, Facility. not the Property Facility? Insurance Placement as the Bond & Associates RENEW characterized RENEWAL IN ORDER TO representative IN POLICY WITH NO LAPSE YOUR COVERAGE, BE RE- PAYMENT MUST principal opinion construes the notice THE EXPIRATION BEFORE CEIVED ambiguous. ambiguous, if it is Even IF INDICATED PAY- DATE ABOVE. try person would to resolve the reasonable MENT IS ON OR AFTER RECEIVED ambiguities inconsistencies DATE THE EXPIRATION SHOWN notice and the letter sent between this ABOVE, EF- COVERAGE WILL BE Bond & Associates. 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME FECTIVE especially Graue’s own testi- The record — RECEIPT OF THE DAY FOLLOWING attempt to resolve these mony —shows PAYMENT PROVIDED PAYMENT IS Instead, repeatedly inconsistencies. FORTY-FIVE WITHIN RECEIVED any of that he did not remember stated DATE FROM EXPIRATION DAYS dealings connected with his details QUOTE IS NULL SHOWN ABOVE. during December 1989 Bond & Associates THEREAFTER, (emphasis AND VOID testimony indi- January 1990. Maclin’s original). that, normally, it was Graue’s moth- cates (with place, stated In another the notice 1989 or er —who died late December follows): capitalization typeface as early January 1990—and Graue who policy.
handled this IMPORTANT Finally, majority tries to minimize upon receipt Maclin’s statement to Graue BE in the form of a PAYMENT MUST might that it not reach St. check, money or- certified bank draft Maclin not refuse Louis time. While did der PAYABLE TO: Facility, her payment forward payment to her clearly indicate words place payment PLAN MISSOURI FAIR did not take Facility.2 shown, the amount due as simply be- Authority “apparent” is not MAILED TO: claiming upon party has acted cause the * * * (nor) simply his conclusions be- it so to him.... It cause looked FAIR PLAN MISSOURI ordinary prudence, ... person OLIVE, where SUITE 1000 faith, acting giving heed not good LOUIS, MO. ST. also to opposing inferences but * * * INDICATED PLEASE RETURN COPY brought no- all restrictions OF THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR PAY- tice, reasonably rely, a case is would MENT. operation of the presented within Quarries, THE PREMIUM NO- IS ONLY THIS S.W.2d at rule. Jeff-Cole TICE WILL RECEIVE. Agency, YOU Mechem quoting § ed.). (2d at 513 in- Immediately payment beneath these short, as a structions, IF evidence—taken the notice stated: YOU support the conclu- QUESTIONS simply does not PLEASE CON- HAVE ANY whole — relying reasonably Lastly, the that Graue acted notice sion TACT YOUR AGENT. *9 you Q. it not make it Did tell him that if did 2. Maclin testified as follows: up prior expiration date time and there to the pay Q. $102.00 in to that on When he came 8th, policy his insur- on the January hour that’s shown was there conversation day your policy expired? ex- “this is before about the ance would be didn’t, pires"? probably think that I because we A. him, him, said, Yes, “You A. I told I told I doing everybody has business with been getting expi- barely in before this here the already this read Fair Plan has Missouri form date, will it I don’t believe it make ration and times and knows this. numerous said, expires.’’ up And it he there added). before (emphasis “Well, get just upit there.” discovery it deposition, Bond with a consists apparent authority the of & Asso- on attorney the for accept payment and bind cover- of direct examination ciates age. opponent, company. his the insurance important analysis, this it does More
Ill attempt the not to cover occasion on even January 8 when Mr. Graue went finding Resting solely apparent on the of paid Bond the office of & Associates and not authority, principal opinion does the Despite inter- premium. brevity the and premi- As the reach the other two issues. I can testimony, mittent nature of this the too late to reach Facili- um was mailed Mr. firm conclusions about some due, draw ty the mailbox rule does before it was I am of mind in this matter. Graue’s state apply in this case. Hammond v. Mis- abidingly intriguing that the le- convinced Fa- Property Insurance Placement souri gal of whether Bond & Associates issue (Mo.App. 366-68 cility, company or was the the insurance actually On the issue raised Graue, anybody’s of Mr. or was petition, I there is a sub- believe that remotely Mr. agent, approached never even policy expir- stantial difference between mind. Graue’s conscious or subconscious and ing of the insured’s inaction because token, By fairly I am he did the same sure choosing policy. not to renew read, the dis- much less even consider I judgment, reverse the Because I would claimers, notices instructions affixed and therefore dissent. accompanying
and his insurance bill. THOMAS, dissenting. Judge, Mr. reasonably I am sure that when in Judge reached I concur in the result Bond Associates Graue left the office of & Judge As Dissenting Opinion. Benton’s paid insur- January having just his on out, theory points Benton honest, $102, he premium of had an ance authority constitute the and the issues that feeling he met the gut either that theory, all of which are elements of in- his premium payment requirements for impressive array in an of advo- marshalled firmly place policy so that it was surance majority opinion Judge cacy year policy that his was for another or afterthought opinion, Benton’s were an day into the next be- going go default Apparent was intro- this case. reach the would not cause plaintiff ap- in the court of duced Louis company’s office St. finding peals as an alternative basis However, required. Doug testimo- Graue’s at time of the fire. policy be in effect meeting, and ny does not even cover issue; on this it We have no trial evidence de- Deanna Maclin’s evidence that best agreed upon the case submit fact that position not determinative deposition stipulation facts and the brief and the dissent- majority opinion both the testimony Doug plaintiff-re- argue convincingly that her ver- ing opinion Maclin, part- spondent, of Deanna un- January sion occurred of what & owner Bond Associates. divergent posi- equivocally supports the respective opinions. each of the tions of myself caught up in the finding After available, I cannot From the scant evidence advocacy majority escalating expectation Mr. Graue’s honest tell what stepped I now opinions, have dissenting was, answer therein lies the whole asked, Mr. “What was Graue’s back fascinating question whether his insurance as to the status of belief an- authority will legal theory he left the office policy when question in this case. swer the 8, having paid Associates on year?” for the next premium of $102 Mis- reaches the Usually, when a case Court, the trial jury Supreme souri deposition consists of 101 Mr. Graue’s questions such answers, answered factual judge of which an- has questions and authority was *10 know,” apparent substance, as this. Because “I don’t swers are in tried, picture when this case was not in the might expected be “I don’t remember.” As were this Court must decide what facts apparent authority. Mr.
regarding upon authority, has the
who relies i.e., proof, non-persua- risk of
burden of Having I am already
sion. observed that at the
unable to discern his state of mind point
critical when he left office Associates, plaintiff I would loses. Judge refusing Benton to affirm
join theory on the
trial court based
authority. Judge in Part Benton’s
I concur III of
opinion. I would reverse the trial court stated therein. reasons SHUNK, In re Kenneth Edmond Howe, E. Disciplinary John Chief Coun- Respondent. Counsel, sel, Phillips, Sam S. Asst. Disc. City, for informant. Jefferson No. 74961. Springfield, for Wampler, respon- Dee Missouri, Supreme Court of dent. En Banc. Feb. 1993. DISCIPLINARY ORIGINAL
PROCEEDING HOLSTEIN, Judge. months, many time1 in
For second Disciplinary the Chief Counsel seeks to dis- attorney pursuant to Rule cipline 5.20 following attorney’s plea guilty in a criminal ease. That rule authorizes sus- lawyer of a convicted pension who has been involving turpi- moral of a misdemeanor any felony. The rule further tude or provides, “If the conviction is affirmed on disciplinary appeal, the or chief committee counsel shall file with this Court motion discipline, together copy a certified with judgment, whereupon lawyer discipline by subject Court shall be pro- other requirement without ceeding.” discipline,
An information motion documents, together supporting were (Mo. Duncan, 844 S.W.2d443 banc See re Robert G.