AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, INC. v. Mead

Missouri Court of Appeals

AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, INC. v. Mead

219 S.W.3d 792, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 595

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2007

DocketED 88736

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.W.3d 792 (AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, INC. v. Mead) 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

AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, INC. v. Mead, 219 S.W.3d 792, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 595 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jacqueline Mead appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. and American Express Centurion Bank (Respondents) on their petition for breach of contract, account stated and attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that summary judgment in favor of Respondents was proper. See ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jacqueline Mead appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. and American Express Centurion Bank (Respondents) on their petition for breach of contract, account stated and attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that summary judgment in favor of Respondents was proper. See ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 792, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-express-travel-related-services-inc-v-mead-moctapp-2007.