In December 1949 Manchester Corporation stated that it was not a priority since the Corporation was only responsible for the 200 yards to the proposed bridge over the River Mersey and Cheshire County Council had not asked for a joint approach to Ministry of Transport to build it. Work was ...
[4] I believe this language inCinnaminsonpersuasive and do not believe it is changed in any way by the fact that the New Jersey law being applied in that case allows recovery for both physical and economic harm in tort actions. The court, in this passage, was evaluating the damages in te...
Appellate review of a court-tried case is governed by Rule 73.01 which was construed by this court in Murphy v. Carron,536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976): "[T]he decree or judgment of the trial court will be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to...
In December 1949 Manchester Corporation stated that it was not a priority since the Corporation was only responsible for the 200 yards to the proposed bridge over the River Mersey and Cheshire County Council had not asked for a joint approach to Ministry of Transport to build it. Work was ...