Backes & Toelke Agri Products, Inc. v. Mikus Farms, L.P.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Backes & Toelke Agri Products, Inc. v. Mikus Farms, L.P.

483 S.W.3d 467, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 230, 2016 WL 1085686

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102629

StatusPublished

This text of 483 S.W.3d 467 (Backes & Toelke Agri Products, Inc. v. Mikus Farms, L.P.) 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

Backes & Toelke Agri Products, Inc. v. Mikus Farms, L.P., 483 S.W.3d 467, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 230, 2016 WL 1085686 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Mikus Farms, LP (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County in favor of Backes & Toelke Agri Products, Inc. (Respondent). On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion to amend the judgment and instead granted a new trial and (2) erred by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the 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

Mikus Farms, LP (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County in favor of Backes & Toelke Agri Products, Inc. (Respondent). On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion to amend the judgment and instead granted a new trial and (2) erred by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 S.W.3d 467, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 230, 2016 WL 1085686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/backes-toelke-agri-products-inc-v-mikus-farms-lp-moctapp-2016.