Adams v. James

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adams v. James

906 S.W.2d 869, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 1995 WL 464808

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 8, 1995

DocketNo. 67304

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 906 S.W.2d 869 (Adams v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. James, 906 S.W.2d 869, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 1995 WL 464808 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Craig S. Adams, appeals from the judgment in his court-tried defamation action against respondents Gary D. James, Connie Roberts, and James Van Amburg. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by the evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Craig S. Adams, appeals from the judgment in his court-tried defamation action against respondents Gary D. James, Connie Roberts, and James Van Amburg. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by the evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 S.W.2d 869, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 1995 WL 464808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-james-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack