Barnett v. Duncan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Barnett v. Duncan

331 S.W.3d 360, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 174, 2011 WL 546579

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 15, 2011·No. ED 94781·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steve and Cindy Duncan, who appeared at trial pro se, appeal from the trial court’s grant of the consolidated petitions for ejectment filed by Richard and Barbara Barnett and Orville and Rosalee Garland against the Duncans. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Canon, 536 S.W.2d *361 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 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 them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2010).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steve and Cindy Duncan, who appeared at trial pro se, appeal from the trial court’s grant of the consolidated petitions for ejectment filed by Richard and Barbara Barnett and Orville and Rosalee Garland against the Duncans. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Canon, 536 S.W.2d *361 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 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 them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2010).

Barnett v. Duncan, 331 S.W.3d 360, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 174, 2011 WL 546579 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

331 S.W.3d 360 (Barnett v. Duncan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.