Baker v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

Baker v. Moore

518 S.W.2d 312

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 7, 1975

DocketNo. 35302

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.2d 312 (Baker v. Moore) 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

Baker v. Moore, 518 S.W.2d 312 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis setting aside and vacating a default judgment entered on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendants-respondents and reinstating the cause on the trial docket of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.

The setting aside of the default judgment by the trial court in this case is consistent with the principles of equity requiring that a controversy be heard on the merits and the policy of the courts in that respect. Robinson v. Clements, 409 S.W.2d 215 (Mo.App.1966). We find no error of law and have determined that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R.

Affirmed.

All concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis setting aside and vacating a default judgment entered on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendants-respondents and reinstating the cause on the trial docket of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.

The setting aside of the default judgment by the trial court in this case is consistent with the principles of equity requiring that a controversy be heard on the merits and the policy of the courts in that respect. Robinson v. Clements, 409 S.W.2d 215 (Mo.App.1966). We find no error of law and have determined that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R.

Affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-moore-moctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack