Jones v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “the issue of whether [defendant] purposely violated the Missouri Sunshine Law, entitling Jones to attorney fees and statutory penalties . . . was factually intertwined with the underlying claim of Jones’ right to access to [defendant’s] records.”
• finding one complete claim had not been fully adjudicated because the issue of attorneys’ fees was left unresolved
• finding the circuit court erred in ruling on the movant’s right to attorney fees because it was not raised in the movant’s summary judgment motion
• finding punitive damages “do not and cannot exist as an independent cause of action, but such damages are mere incidents to the cause of action and can never constitute the basis thereof” (citing Gould v. Starr, 558 S.W.2d 755, 770 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977))
• Rule 74.01(b) cannot be invoked by the trial court in action brought to gain access to records under the Sunshine Law where claim for attorney fees under section 610.027 is still pending

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).