Murphy v. City Utilities of Springfield, No. SD 28928.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Robert S. Barney |
| Citation | 283 S.W.3d 767 |
| Decision Date | 09 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 28928. |
| Parties | Curtis MURPHY, Appellant, v. CITY UTILITIES OF SPRINGFIELD, Missouri, et al., Respondents. |
v.
CITY UTILITIES OF SPRINGFIELD, Missouri, et al., Respondents.
D. Carlos Romious, Kansas City, for Appellant.
JoAnne Spears Jackson and James E. Meadows, Shughart, Thompson & Kilroy, P.C., Springfield, for Respondent, CU Springfield & CU Employees.
Donald R. Aubry, Jolley, Walsh, Raisher, Hurley & Aubry, P.C., Kansas City, for Respondent, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO Local No. 691.
[283 S.W.3d 768]
ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.
Curtis Murphy ("Appellant") appeals the "Final Judgment" of the trial court which dismissed with prejudice his Petition filed against the City of Springfield, Missouri ("the City"); Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO Local No. 691 ("ATU"); City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri ("CU"); and various individuals.1 Appellant asserts five points of trial court error.
The record reveals Appellant was employed with CU from April of 1998 until he was terminated by CU on March 13, 2002. When his union's grievance process was unsuccessful, Appellant filed a federal lawsuit against CU, the City of Springfield, and others in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("the federal lawsuit"). On December 21, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment against Appellant in the federal lawsuit and that ruling was affirmed on appeal.
Shortly after the federal lawsuit was disposed of, Appellant initiated the present lawsuit on June 14, 2006. Appellant's expansive Petition, which was in excess of forty pages long and contained 215 numbered allegations, asserted fifteen separate counts against the defendants herein. On July 12, 2003, the City, CU and the individual CU employees filed a "Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment" in relation to thirteen of Appellant's fifteen counts set out in the Petition and, later, they filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts. Appellant then filed a plethora of motions including a motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed all of Appellant's claims with prejudice.
On November 21, 2007, Appellant filed a "Motion to Reconsider and Set Aside Judgment" and, later, on November 29, 2007, he filed a "Motion to Amend Judgment." These motions were denied by the trial court. This appeal followed.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb, No. SD 29866.
...court an immediate, accurate, complete, and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.'" Murphy v. City Utilities of Springfield, 283 S.W.3d 767, 768 (Mo.App.2009) (quoting Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 562 (Mo.App.2001)). "If this [C]ourt is to adjudicate an appeal wi......
-
Interest of R.R.S., Nos. SD 35707
...court an immediate, accurate, complete, and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Murphy v. City Utilities of Springfield , 283 S.W.3d 767, 768 (Mo.App. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Where an appellant challenges factual propositions necessary to suppor......
-
Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb, No. SD 29866.
...court an immediate, accurate, complete, and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.'" Murphy v. City Utilities of Springfield, 283 S.W.3d 767, 768 (Mo.App.2009) (quoting Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 562 (Mo.App.2001)). "If this [C]ourt is to adjudicate an appeal wi......
-
Interest of R.R.S., Nos. SD 35707
...court an immediate, accurate, complete, and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Murphy v. City Utilities of Springfield , 283 S.W.3d 767, 768 (Mo.App. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Where an appellant challenges factual propositions necessary to suppor......