Allee v. Gilkey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Allee v. Gilkey

238 S.W.3d 204, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1380, 2007 WL 2915174

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 9, 2007

DocketWD 67513

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 S.W.3d 204 (Allee v. Gilkey) 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

Allee v. Gilkey, 238 S.W.3d 204, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1380, 2007 WL 2915174 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

George Gilkey (“Gilkey”) appeals a Jackson County Circuit Court judgment denying his motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Eric and Pamela Allee (“the Allees”) in a personal injury suit. In response to Gilkey’s appellate brief, the Allees have filed a motion to strike that brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04, and to dismiss the appeal, which is taken up with the appeal. Rather *205 than dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds, this court extends discretionary review to the merits of Gilkey’s appeal. Having carefully considered Gilkey’s claims on appeal, we find that the trial court judgment under review is not in error. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)

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

ORDER

George Gilkey (“Gilkey”) appeals a Jackson County Circuit Court judgment denying his motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Eric and Pamela Allee (“the Allees”) in a personal injury suit. In response to Gilkey’s appellate brief, the Allees have filed a motion to strike that brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04, and to dismiss the appeal, which is taken up with the appeal. Rather *205 than dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds, this court extends discretionary review to the merits of Gilkey’s appeal. Having carefully considered Gilkey’s claims on appeal, we find that the trial court judgment under review is not in error. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 204, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1380, 2007 WL 2915174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allee-v-gilkey-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack