American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson

342 S.W.3d 443, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 838

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 2011

DocketED 95436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 443 (American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson) 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 Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 342 S.W.3d 443, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 838 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding that Appellant is liable for uninsured motorist coverage provided in its policy issued to Latoya Hairston (Hairston) for bodily injuries sustained by Hairston and Luqken-ny Arlington in an automobile accident. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence at trial. Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An extended opinion would have no prec-edential 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.

Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding that Appellant is liable for uninsured motorist coverage provided in its policy issued to Latoya Hairston (Hairston) for bodily injuries sustained by Hairston and Luqken-ny Arlington in an automobile accident. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence at trial. Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An extended opinion would have no prec-edential 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)

342 S.W.3d 443, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-family-mutual-insurance-co-v-johnson-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack