# State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Anderson

> Missouri Court of Appeals · October 26, 1988 · 759 S.W.2d 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5072796

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, ex rel. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Relator v. Honorable David ANDERSON, Judge, of the Circuit Court of Greene County
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 26, 1988
- **Citations:** 759 S.W.2d 102; 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 1463; 1988 WL 114571
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Flanigan
- **Judges:** Files, Flanigan, Hogan, Maus, Prewitt
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5072796

## Opinion text

FLANIGAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In Mo. Highway & Transp. Com’n v. Anderson, 735 S.W.2d 350, 356 (Mo. banc 1987), the court said: “No portion of Rule 56.01 permits the landowners to discover the notes, memoranda, summaries or written documents used in making the appraisals for the [highway commission].” (Emphasis added.)
Rule 56.01(b)(4), dealing with discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, including discovery by deposition, is of course a “portion” of Rule 56.01. I construe the quoted language from Anderson to preclude the discovery of *108 'Roberts written report at the taking of the deposition of appraiser Tom Rule by the condemnee. Of course this court is bound by Anderson. The trial court should be prohibited from enforcing any portion of its order inconsistent with the quoted Ian-guage.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5072796. Public record. Not legal advice.