Ott Law Firm

John E. Flood, Jr., Susan L. Flood, Robert K. Burris, and Anne M. Burris, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of All Lot Owners of Wheeler Canyon Subdivision a/k/a Wheeler Canyon Estates and Wheeler Canyon Community Association, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Center Group, Inc., James Zavradinos, and Stanley Siegfried, Defendants/Appellants.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

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: John E. Flood, Jr., Susan L. Flood, Robert K. Burris, and Anne M. Burris, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of All Lot Owners of Wheeler Canyon Subdivision a/k/a Wheeler Canyon Estates and Wheeler Canyon Community Association, Plaintiffs/Respondents,v. Center Group, Inc., James Zavradinos, and Stanley Siegfried, Defendants/Appellants. Case Number: 70809 Handdown Date: 10/28/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Donald E. Dalton Counsel for Appellant: Leslie Broome Yoffie Counsel for Respondent: Charles W. Niedner Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Knaup Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and Dowd, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendants Center Group, Inc. and Demetrious J. (Jim) Zavradinos(FN1) appeal from the trial court's judgment against them on a claim of negligence per se. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Footnote: FN1.Zavradinos was named "James" in the petition. 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

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

Read opinion
remanded

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.

per_curiam4,488 words
Read opinion

Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.

Read opinion