Case Name: Heather GALLOWAY-TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Eric VOSPETTE, et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-06-11
Citations: 407 S.W.3d 95
Docket Number: No. WD 75352
Parties: Heather GALLOWAY-TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Eric VOSPETTE, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before Division Three: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Presiding Judge, CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Judge and GARY D. WITT, Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 407
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Heather GALLOWAY-TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Eric VOSPETTE, et al., Respondents.
No. WD 75352.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
June 11, 2013.
James H. Thompson, Jr., North Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Michael E. McCausland and Anthony M. Knipp, Kansas City, MO, for respondent Eric Vospette.
Kendall R. Garten, Blue Springs, MO, for respondent Gary M. Mouse.
Before Division Three: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Presiding Judge, CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Judge and GARY D. WITT, Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Heather Galloway-Taylor appeals from the trial court's judgment entering a directed verdict following the close of her evidence in favor of Gary Mouse and G.M. Mouse, P.C., and entering a partial directed verdict in favor of Eric Vospette, on claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The jury then entered a verdict in favor of Galloway-Taylor for compensatory damages on her claim for assault and battery against Vospette. On appeal, Galloway-Taylor argues that the trial court erred: (1) in rejecting a strike for cause of venire person number 7; (2) in directing a verdict on her malicious prosecution claims because it employed an incorrect legal standard for proof of damages; (3) in sustaining an objection to the admission into evidence of a ticket issued to Vospette; and (4) in sustaining an objection to expert testimony about the standard of care before an attorney should file a malicious prosecution lawsuit for a client.
We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).