Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, d/b/a Cadillac Motor Car Division, a corporation doing business in Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff/
- Respondent
- General Motors Corporation, d/b/a Cadillac Motor Car Division, a corporation doing business in Missouri, Defendant/
Disposition
Affirmed
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 Eastern District Case Style: Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, d/b/a Cadillac Motor Car Division, a corporation doing business in Missouri, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: 72235 Handdown Date: 04/07/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Maura B. McShane Counsel for Appellant: James C. Bradenburg, Todd M. Boehlje and David O. Kreuter Counsel for Respondent: James E. McDaniel and Margaret M. Mooney Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Jim Lynch Cadillac, Inc. (Lynch) appeals from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of General Motors Corporation (GM). Lynch asserts the court erred in: (1) dismissing Counts III and VI of its first amended petition and in failing to allow it to amend its petition; (2) granting a directed verdict in favor of GM on Counts II and V in that the evidence presented established breach of contract; (3) submitting jury instruction Number 9, GM's affirmative defense; (4) overruling its objection to GM's reference to Jim Lynch's personal worth which was irrelevant; (5) admitting evidence of an application signed by Jim Lynch which was a collateral matter, and cannot be used for impeachment purposes; and (6) limiting testimony of rebuttal witness, Mark Hoffman, Certified Public Accountant (CPA). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties
have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.