Law Student Commentary

Some commentary by some MU law students on briefed cases will be posted on this site, available through this page. The posts available through this page are being made available at the request of the corresponding student author, and the work is their work. As of this time, the number of students doing this work is not sufficiently large to populate a separate site.

June 2015:

Our final law student contribution, from Robert Herz, involves whether termination of a physician’s engagement pretermits the physician’s recovery of a portion of the fees paid on behalf of patients following the termination. Enjoy.


The ease with which l.l.c.’s can be formed, and the flexibility of the entity form, can allow folks to form an entity without adequately detailing the contemplated arrangements, with a dispute to follow. In our most recent student contribution, Wes Dagestad examines a case illustrating the issue. In addition to a number of other matters, the discussion examines what is necessary to be a member of an l.l.c. and prior Missouri authority addressing that matter, Birkenmeier v. Keller Biomedical, LLC, 312 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

5/13/15: We have a new student commentary–from Robert Herz.

It addresses, inter alia, an interpretative issue whether certain restrictions were promulgated, as well as issues of “waiver”. Enjoy!

4/22/15 (updated 5/13 for second post): We have our next student commentary–from Wes Dagestad.

It involves a settlement agreement gone bad.

See more at the separate page (for the first part of the commentary on the case) and the separate page (for the second part of the commentary on the case).

3/4/15: We have our second student commentary–from Wes Dagestad. It begins:

Someone comes to your house or business and tells you about this great solar energy program and how you are going to save the planet and potentially make some money. Sounds like a win-win for everyone. Using the tip of your finger you doodle your signature on an iPad screen thinking everyone is on the same page. But what does that ‘doodle’ mean? What did you just agree to? These were the basic circumstances in the pending appellate case of Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Sharp. 2014 WL 5286452 (Mo. App. W.D.) (App. Brief).

See more at:

2/24/15: We have our first student commentary–from Robert Herz. It begins:

I’m looking to buy a new car. But of course I want to test drive it first. Think about the same scenario when buying clothes. I wouldn’t typically buy new clothes without trying to see if they fit. But what if the salesperson asked for a deposit in order to try on the clothes? That’s not so bad because at least I get my money back. But let’s suppose that the clothes don’t fit, or I don’t like the way the clothes look on me, so I decide not to buy them… But I don’t get my deposit back?!

See more at: