presented, and that no recovery can be had in any event. This rule is pertinent where the record indicates that other and additional evidence might be adduced in support of plaintiffs action and enable him to make a submissible case. Because the evidence does not establish that plaintiff could not make a sub-missible case against defendant if the evidence were fully developed, we decline to reverse and direct the entry of a verdict for defendant. It is appropriate to remand the case for a new trial in which the possibility for a recovery by the plaintiff will remain if sufficient evidence is produced. Id. at 517 (citations omitted). See also Affiliated Acceptance Corp. v. Boggs, 917 S.W.2d 652, 656 (Mo.App.1996); Moss v. Nat’l Super Mkts., Inc., 781 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Mo. banc 1989) (<HOLDING>). As noted, supra, Dr. Mandrace-hia’s written
holding that the general rule is that a plaintiffs verdict should be reversed without remand for a new trial only if the appellate court is convinced that the plaintiff could not make a submissible case on retrial holding that where supreme court in prior appeal reversed and remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary to determine the issue of accounting only trial court on remand could not consider defendants new defenses to joint venture and fraud claims determined in first trial holding that the district court should be reversed for abusing its discretion only if we are firmly convinced of a mistake that affects substantial rights citation and internal quotation marks omitted holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict