Bank 10, Plaintiff, v. Church of Christ "with the Elijah Message," Established Anew 1929 Inc., Appellants, and "The Church," James Parker and James Sorgen, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownWD53510
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: Bank 10, Plaintiff, v. Church of Christ "with the Elijah Message," Established Anew 1929 Inc., Appellants, and "The Church," James Parker and James Sorgen, Respondents. Case Number: 53763 Handdown Date: 04/21/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Preston Dean Counsel for Appellant: Scott Turner Counsel for Respondent: Debra Linn Snoke and Michelle Suter Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Lowenstein, P.J., Breckenridge and Hanna, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER The plaintiff filed a Petition for Interpleader against The Church of Christ "With the Elijah Message" Established Anew 1929, Inc., and various of its agents, in order to determine which group of church leaders constituted the controlling body and to determine the legal owner of funds deposited in a money market account. The trial court ordered that the interpleaded funds be paid to the respondents. Because the issues in the companion case styled: James R. Rolfe, George Wilkin, Edward R. Sechrest, Jr., Eddie Lee, and Church of Christ "with the Elijah Message" v. James Parker, John O'Keefe, and Ernest E. Fife, Case No. WD 53510 (Mo. App. W.D. April 21, 1998), are identical to those in this case, a published opinion would have no precedential value. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450